what are the 5 critical thinking tools

• About Amy Gray | The Leadership Effect

Individual Leadership Coaching

• Business Coaching
• Master Deep Active Listening Skills for Leaders & Managers
• Coaching Skills for Leaders & Managers
• Course: Team Trust Foundations
• Course: Better 1:1s
• Give Constructive Feedback That Creates An Impact Guidebook
• 9 Critical Thinking Tools Every Effective Leader Needs Guidebook
• Receiving Feedback Webinar
• Giving Feedback Webinar
• Other Recommended Resources
• Critical Thinking , Decision Making , Strategies & Tools

9 Critical Thinking Tools for Better Decision Making

• - November 26, 2021

“A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices.” William James

This article is a companion to my previous article about a Decision-Making Framework for Leaders and will refer to some of the concepts in that post. Today, I’m sharing an overview of 9 critical thinking tools you can use as a leader making decisions for your organisation or team. I have written a more in-depth article on each of the tools and you will find links to those articles below.

Table of Contents

What is critical thinking.

Critical thinking is the mode of thinking – about any subject, content, or problem – in which the thinker improves the quality of his or her thinking by skillfully analyzing, assessing, and reconstructing it.

It entails effective communication and problem-solving abilities, as well as a commitment to overcoming our biases.

Or, to put it another way – critical thinking is the art of thinking about our approach to thinking. It’s about gaining knowledge, comprehending it, applying that knowledge, analyzing and synthesizing.

Critical thinking can happen at any part of the decision making process. And the goal is to make sure we think deeply about our thinking and apply that thinking in different ways to come up with options and alternatives.

Think of it as a construct of moving through our thinking instead of just rushing through it.

Critical Thinking Is An Important Part of Decision-Making

It’s important to understand that critical thinking can sit outside of a specific decision-making process. And by the same token, decision making doesn’t always need to include critical thinking.

But for the purposes of this article, I’m addressing critical thinking within the problem and decision-making context.

And I’m sharing 9 critical thinking tools that are helpful for people at every stage of their leadership journey. There are so many tools out there and I’d love to hear from you if you have a favourite one that you’ve found useful.

So, whether you are:

• just beginning to flex your critical thinking and decision-making muscles
• or an experienced leader looking for tools to help you think more deeply about a problem

There is something here for you.

Let’s dive in.

9 Critical Thinking Tools For Leaders

• Decision Tree
• Changing Your Lens
• Active Listening & Socratic Method
• Decision Hygiene Checklist
• Where Accuracy Lives
• Overcoming Analysis Paralysis

Of course, there are many other tools available. But let’s look at how each of these can improve your decision-making and leadership skills .

1. Decision-Making Tree

The decision making tree can be useful before going into a decision-making meeting to determine how collaborative or inclusive you need to be and who should be included in the discussion on a particular issue.

This tree is a simple yes/no workflow in response to some specific questions that can guide you to identify if you need others to help you make a certain decision and if so, who you should include.

To take a deeper dive into the decision-making tree framework read our latest article.

2. Changing Your Lens

Looking at problems through a different lens is about changing your point of view, changing the context, or changing the reality. Let’s go into each of those a little more.

Point of View

Ask yourself these questions as it relates to the problem at hand.

• Can you change your point of view?
• How is the problem defined from the perspective of the CEO, of the frontline staff, of customers, of adjacent groups? The goal is to look at the problem from the perspective of others within your specific organisation, so adjust these as needed.

They will all look at the problem in different ways as well as define it differently, depending upon their point of view. Understanding all of the viewpoints can give you a deeper understanding of all the ramifications of the problem at hand.

We tend to come at the problem from our own functional perspective. If I work in finance, well, it’s going to be a finance problem. If you ask someone who works in IT, they’ll likely look at the same thing and say, “It’s an IT problem.”

Can you change the context in terms of how you define the problem? Find someone from another area and ask them how they would define the problem. Use their perspective to generate that different point of view.

Change Your Reality

Ask yourself, “What if I …

• Removed some of these constraints?
• Had some of these resources?
• Was able to do X instead of Y?

By changing the reality, you may find a different way to define the problem that enables you to pursue different opportunities.

3. Active Listening & Socratic Method

This is pairing active listening with the Socratic method. Active listening is one of the core skills you’ll want to develop to get better at critical thinking. I also touched on active listening / deep listening in my article on difficult conversations .

Because you need to turn down the volume on your own beliefs and biases and listen to someone else. It’s about being present and staying focused.

Listening Skills include:

• Be present and stay focused
• Ask open-ended and probing questions
• Be aware of your biases
• Don’t interrupt or preempt
• Be curious and ask questions (80/20 talk time)
• Recap facts – repeat back what you heard using their language
• Allow the silence
• Move from Cosmetic>Conversational>Active>Deep Listening

When you are trying to find the problem, talk about what success looks like, and think about what the real question is, you have to be aware of your own biases. The things that resonate with you because it’s what you already believe.

Learn to ask questions and listen for insight.

When you’re trying to understand and gather information, it’s very easy to want to jump in to clarify your question when someone’s thinking.

But they’re actually thinking – so you need to sit back and allow it.

When you marry this type of active listening with some key questions that come from Socrates, it can help you understand problems at a deeper level.

To use this, just highlight one or two questions you’ve never used before to clarify, to understand the initial issue, or to bring up some assumptions. You can take just one question from each area to try out and listen for the answer.

As simple as this sounds, this is part of critical thinking. It’s about uncovering what’s actually going on to get to the root cause of a situation.

To take a deeper dive into the socratic method framework and some scenarios in the worplace read our latest article.

4. Decision Hygiene Checklist

When we think about active listening with great questions, we need to make sure that we are learning what someone else thinks without infecting them with what WE think.

That’s where the Decision Hygiene Checklist comes in. When we’re in this gathering and analysing data phase, you need to make sure you keep that analysis in a neutral environment. Don’t signal your conclusions.

You may want to quarantine people from past decisions, as well. Don’t bring up past decisions or outcomes because you want to get the information from them without it being polluted.

When you’re seeking feedback from others, exercise good decision hygiene in the following ways:

• Quarantine others from your opinions and beliefs when asking for feedback.
• Frame your request for feedback in a neutral fashion to keep from signalling your conclusions.
• Quarantine others from outcomes when asking about past decisions.
• Prior to being amid a decision, make a checklist of the fact and relevant information you would need to provide feedback for such a decision.
• Have the people seeking and giving feedback agree to be accountable to provide all the relevant information, ask for anything that’s not been provided, and refuse to give feedback if the person seeking feedback can’t provide relevant information.

When involved in a group setting, exercise these additional forms of decision hygiene:

• Solicit feedback independently, before a group discussion or before members express their views to one another.
• Anonymize the sources of the views and distribute a compilation to group members for review, in advance of group meetings or discussion.

5. Where Accuracy Lives

Remaining on the flavour of understanding that our own beliefs can compete or pollute reality and our decision making, another approach is to think about where accuracy lives.

The Inside View is from your own perspective, experiences, and beliefs. The Outside View is the way others see the world and the situation you’re in. And somewhere in the middle may be the reality.

This tool is quite simple. Start out with your inside view and describe the challenge from your perspective. Write down your understanding, your analysis, and maybe even your conclusions.

Then it’s almost like De Bono’s six hats where you take that hat off and you look at the outside view. Describe the situation from an outside view. Ask yourself if a co-worker had this problem, how would they view it? How might their perspective differ? What kind of solutions could they offer?

And then you marry those two narratives. One thing about the outside view is that you can get statistics around some of the information you’re looking at.

It can be quite helpful to get a base level of what is actually proven and true, statistically, that is not polluted by the inside view.

Once you’ve run through this process, ask yourself:

• Did this actually change my view?
• Can I see the biases that were sitting there?
• And if Yes, why?

To learn more about how to use this framework and how to overcome some of the obstacles you might encounter read our deeper dive here.

6. The 5 Whys: Root Cause Analysis

This is a really simple tool that starts off by defining the problem or the defect and then continuing to ask why until you get to the 5th Why. This is is usually where you’ll start to discover a possible solution.

Here’s a simple example:

• Problem – I ran a red light.
• Well, why did it happen? I was late for an appointment.
• Why did that happen? Well, I woke up late.
• And why did that happen? My alarm didn’t go off on my phone.
• Why did that happen? I didn’t plug it into the charger.
• And why is that happening? It wasn’t plugged in. It’s because I forgot to plug it in.

So there’s the possible solution – I’ve got to set up a recurring alarm at 9pm to remind me to plug my phone in.

This is a tool perfect for junior members on your team, or ones that come to you with a barrage of questions on a problem. Have them take the 5 Whys template and think it through, ask themselves the 5 why’s.

Interested in learning more about how to use the 5 Why’s framework and how to overcome some of the obstacles you might encounter? Read our latest article with case studies.

7. RAID Log

RAID stands for

• Risks – write down the risks that will have an adverse impact on this?
• Assumptions – list out all the associated assumptions
• Issues – What are some of the issues that have already impacted or could impact the project?
• Dependencies – what are the dependencies

The RAID Log is often used when you’ve got multiple decisions about an ongoing project.

Whether you’ll be assessing your thinking by yourself, or with team members or customers, this is a great way to make sure you’re gathering all of the necessary information including the assumptions, any issues and dependencies.

8. The 7 So-Whats: Consequences of Actions

All of the previous tools are designed to help you define what the problem is. But it’s also important to think about the consequences of actions.

As you grow as a leader, you’ll need to be comfortable understanding both big thinking and little thinking. Big picture and little details so you are confident in your decisions.

A big part of that is understanding the consequences of your actions and decisions. That’s what the 7 So-Whats tool is about.

The 7 So-Whats is similar to the 5 Whys in that you ask the same question repeatedly to get the answer. Start with your recommendation or possible solution and then ask “So, what will that mean” 7 times.

For example, if you need to hire a new sales rep, the first ‘So, what’ would be something like, “We’ll need to have the right job description and salary package for them, and let the team know they’re coming on.”

And then you work your way through the rest of the ‘So, Whats’ to detail out the results or consequences of the action you’re thinking about.

To read more about the 7 So-Whats read our comprehensive article with case studies.

9. Overcoming Analysis Paralysis

A lot of people get caught up in analysis paralysis. I know I do. Whether it’s thinking about moving house or taking on a new hire, you get all the information but you still feel stuck.

What I find is that it’s usually because we are narrowing our focus too much, especially when it comes to advancement in your career or self-promotion.

So here are some questions to help you push through that analysis paralysis. Ask yourself:

• How would I make this decision if I was focused on opening up opportunities for myself / the situation?
• What would I advise my best friend to do? Or What would my successor do in this situation?
• Your caution may be the result of short-term fears, such as embarrassment, that aren’t important in the long run. Can you create a timeline or deadline to make the decision that will give you some mental distance?

Basically, you want to ask yourself what is holding you back. Is it fear? Fear of disappointment? Or that you don’t have enough information?

Perhaps you think you could get more information, but can you get more information in the time available? If not, then make the decision with what you have.

If you hold back from making your decision, what will the impact be for your stakeholders, your career, and how people view you?

The purpose of this tool is to separate yourself from the situation a little bit so you can look at it more subjectively as if you were advising a friend. And push through the paralysis to make the decision.

9 Critical Thinking Tools For Better Decision-Making

Taking time to think about how you think and using tools like these can be the difference between becoming a good leader and a great one.

Use these nine critical thinking tools to empower you to make better decisions for your business, organisation, and career – and feel confident doing so.

For personalised guidance on how best to use critical thinking skills for your business or organisation, drop us a line . We would be happy to partner with you to create a plan tailored to your needs.

Amy Gray is a seasoned executive and business coach who helps growth-minded leaders achieve clarity, confidence, and results. With over 25 years of hands-on experience in senior leadership, marketing, and technology roles, she has a proven track record of empowering leaders to develop business strategies, build high-performance teams, drive customer acquisition, and optimise their bottom line.

Leave A Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Useful resources

Start your journey today, you may be interested in.

• Coaching , Insights , Leadership , Listening , Productivity , Team Engagement

The Art of Delegation Empowering Your Team and Elevating Your Leadership Part 2 of 2

• Coaching , Insights , Leadership , Listening , Team Engagement

From Bottleneck to Breakthrough: A Leader’s Guide to Trust and Delegation Part 1 of 2

• Coaching , Insights , Leadership , Strategies & Tools

Evolve to Lead: Embracing Personal Growth as the Key to Team and Organisational Success

Leadership Development Programs

About Amy Gray

Subscribe To Our Mailing List

Privacy Policy

Corporate Policies and Statements

Articles & Insights

Client Stories & Results

• Recommended Resources

Ebook: How To Give Feedback

[email protected]

Sydney, Australia

LinkedIn: Amy Gray

Instagram: @LeadershipEffect

• Programs & Courses
• Client Stories

© The Leadership Effect All rights reserved.

• Table of Contents
• Random Entry
• Chronological
• Editorial Information
• About the SEP
• Editorial Board
• How to Cite the SEP
• Special Characters
• Advanced Tools
• Support the SEP
• PDFs for SEP Friends
• Make a Donation
• SEPIA for Libraries
• Entry Contents

Bibliography

Academic tools.

• Friends PDF Preview
• Author and Citation Info
• Back to Top

Critical Thinking

Critical thinking is a widely accepted educational goal. Its definition is contested, but the competing definitions can be understood as differing conceptions of the same basic concept: careful thinking directed to a goal. Conceptions differ with respect to the scope of such thinking, the type of goal, the criteria and norms for thinking carefully, and the thinking components on which they focus. Its adoption as an educational goal has been recommended on the basis of respect for students’ autonomy and preparing students for success in life and for democratic citizenship. “Critical thinkers” have the dispositions and abilities that lead them to think critically when appropriate. The abilities can be identified directly; the dispositions indirectly, by considering what factors contribute to or impede exercise of the abilities. Standardized tests have been developed to assess the degree to which a person possesses such dispositions and abilities. Educational intervention has been shown experimentally to improve them, particularly when it includes dialogue, anchored instruction, and mentoring. Controversies have arisen over the generalizability of critical thinking across domains, over alleged bias in critical thinking theories and instruction, and over the relationship of critical thinking to other types of thinking.

2.1 Dewey’s Three Main Examples

2.2 dewey’s other examples, 2.3 further examples, 2.4 non-examples, 3. the definition of critical thinking, 4. its value, 5. the process of thinking critically, 6. components of the process, 7. contributory dispositions and abilities, 8.1 initiating dispositions, 8.2 internal dispositions, 9. critical thinking abilities, 10. required knowledge, 11. educational methods, 12.1 the generalizability of critical thinking, 12.2 bias in critical thinking theory and pedagogy, 12.3 relationship of critical thinking to other types of thinking, other internet resources, related entries.

Use of the term ‘critical thinking’ to describe an educational goal goes back to the American philosopher John Dewey (1910), who more commonly called it ‘reflective thinking’. He defined it as

active, persistent and careful consideration of any belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the grounds that support it, and the further conclusions to which it tends. (Dewey 1910: 6; 1933: 9)

and identified a habit of such consideration with a scientific attitude of mind. His lengthy quotations of Francis Bacon, John Locke, and John Stuart Mill indicate that he was not the first person to propose development of a scientific attitude of mind as an educational goal.

In the 1930s, many of the schools that participated in the Eight-Year Study of the Progressive Education Association (Aikin 1942) adopted critical thinking as an educational goal, for whose achievement the study’s Evaluation Staff developed tests (Smith, Tyler, & Evaluation Staff 1942). Glaser (1941) showed experimentally that it was possible to improve the critical thinking of high school students. Bloom’s influential taxonomy of cognitive educational objectives (Bloom et al. 1956) incorporated critical thinking abilities. Ennis (1962) proposed 12 aspects of critical thinking as a basis for research on the teaching and evaluation of critical thinking ability.

Since 1980, an annual international conference in California on critical thinking and educational reform has attracted tens of thousands of educators from all levels of education and from many parts of the world. Also since 1980, the state university system in California has required all undergraduate students to take a critical thinking course. Since 1983, the Association for Informal Logic and Critical Thinking has sponsored sessions in conjunction with the divisional meetings of the American Philosophical Association (APA). In 1987, the APA’s Committee on Pre-College Philosophy commissioned a consensus statement on critical thinking for purposes of educational assessment and instruction (Facione 1990a). Researchers have developed standardized tests of critical thinking abilities and dispositions; for details, see the Supplement on Assessment . Educational jurisdictions around the world now include critical thinking in guidelines for curriculum and assessment.

For details on this history, see the Supplement on History .

2. Examples and Non-Examples

Before considering the definition of critical thinking, it will be helpful to have in mind some examples of critical thinking, as well as some examples of kinds of thinking that would apparently not count as critical thinking.

Dewey (1910: 68–71; 1933: 91–94) takes as paradigms of reflective thinking three class papers of students in which they describe their thinking. The examples range from the everyday to the scientific.

Transit : “The other day, when I was down town on 16th Street, a clock caught my eye. I saw that the hands pointed to 12:20. This suggested that I had an engagement at 124th Street, at one o’clock. I reasoned that as it had taken me an hour to come down on a surface car, I should probably be twenty minutes late if I returned the same way. I might save twenty minutes by a subway express. But was there a station near? If not, I might lose more than twenty minutes in looking for one. Then I thought of the elevated, and I saw there was such a line within two blocks. But where was the station? If it were several blocks above or below the street I was on, I should lose time instead of gaining it. My mind went back to the subway express as quicker than the elevated; furthermore, I remembered that it went nearer than the elevated to the part of 124th Street I wished to reach, so that time would be saved at the end of the journey. I concluded in favor of the subway, and reached my destination by one o’clock.” (Dewey 1910: 68–69; 1933: 91–92)

Ferryboat : “Projecting nearly horizontally from the upper deck of the ferryboat on which I daily cross the river is a long white pole, having a gilded ball at its tip. It suggested a flagpole when I first saw it; its color, shape, and gilded ball agreed with this idea, and these reasons seemed to justify me in this belief. But soon difficulties presented themselves. The pole was nearly horizontal, an unusual position for a flagpole; in the next place, there was no pulley, ring, or cord by which to attach a flag; finally, there were elsewhere on the boat two vertical staffs from which flags were occasionally flown. It seemed probable that the pole was not there for flag-flying.

“I then tried to imagine all possible purposes of the pole, and to consider for which of these it was best suited: (a) Possibly it was an ornament. But as all the ferryboats and even the tugboats carried poles, this hypothesis was rejected. (b) Possibly it was the terminal of a wireless telegraph. But the same considerations made this improbable. Besides, the more natural place for such a terminal would be the highest part of the boat, on top of the pilot house. (c) Its purpose might be to point out the direction in which the boat is moving.

“In support of this conclusion, I discovered that the pole was lower than the pilot house, so that the steersman could easily see it. Moreover, the tip was enough higher than the base, so that, from the pilot’s position, it must appear to project far out in front of the boat. Moreover, the pilot being near the front of the boat, he would need some such guide as to its direction. Tugboats would also need poles for such a purpose. This hypothesis was so much more probable than the others that I accepted it. I formed the conclusion that the pole was set up for the purpose of showing the pilot the direction in which the boat pointed, to enable him to steer correctly.” (Dewey 1910: 69–70; 1933: 92–93)

Bubbles : “In washing tumblers in hot soapsuds and placing them mouth downward on a plate, bubbles appeared on the outside of the mouth of the tumblers and then went inside. Why? The presence of bubbles suggests air, which I note must come from inside the tumbler. I see that the soapy water on the plate prevents escape of the air save as it may be caught in bubbles. But why should air leave the tumbler? There was no substance entering to force it out. It must have expanded. It expands by increase of heat, or by decrease of pressure, or both. Could the air have become heated after the tumbler was taken from the hot suds? Clearly not the air that was already entangled in the water. If heated air was the cause, cold air must have entered in transferring the tumblers from the suds to the plate. I test to see if this supposition is true by taking several more tumblers out. Some I shake so as to make sure of entrapping cold air in them. Some I take out holding mouth downward in order to prevent cold air from entering. Bubbles appear on the outside of every one of the former and on none of the latter. I must be right in my inference. Air from the outside must have been expanded by the heat of the tumbler, which explains the appearance of the bubbles on the outside. But why do they then go inside? Cold contracts. The tumbler cooled and also the air inside it. Tension was removed, and hence bubbles appeared inside. To be sure of this, I test by placing a cup of ice on the tumbler while the bubbles are still forming outside. They soon reverse” (Dewey 1910: 70–71; 1933: 93–94).

Dewey (1910, 1933) sprinkles his book with other examples of critical thinking. We will refer to the following.

Weather : A man on a walk notices that it has suddenly become cool, thinks that it is probably going to rain, looks up and sees a dark cloud obscuring the sun, and quickens his steps (1910: 6–10; 1933: 9–13).

Disorder : A man finds his rooms on his return to them in disorder with his belongings thrown about, thinks at first of burglary as an explanation, then thinks of mischievous children as being an alternative explanation, then looks to see whether valuables are missing, and discovers that they are (1910: 82–83; 1933: 166–168).

Typhoid : A physician diagnosing a patient whose conspicuous symptoms suggest typhoid avoids drawing a conclusion until more data are gathered by questioning the patient and by making tests (1910: 85–86; 1933: 170).

Blur : A moving blur catches our eye in the distance, we ask ourselves whether it is a cloud of whirling dust or a tree moving its branches or a man signaling to us, we think of other traits that should be found on each of those possibilities, and we look and see if those traits are found (1910: 102, 108; 1933: 121, 133).

Suction pump : In thinking about the suction pump, the scientist first notes that it will draw water only to a maximum height of 33 feet at sea level and to a lesser maximum height at higher elevations, selects for attention the differing atmospheric pressure at these elevations, sets up experiments in which the air is removed from a vessel containing water (when suction no longer works) and in which the weight of air at various levels is calculated, compares the results of reasoning about the height to which a given weight of air will allow a suction pump to raise water with the observed maximum height at different elevations, and finally assimilates the suction pump to such apparently different phenomena as the siphon and the rising of a balloon (1910: 150–153; 1933: 195–198).

Diamond : A passenger in a car driving in a diamond lane reserved for vehicles with at least one passenger notices that the diamond marks on the pavement are far apart in some places and close together in others. Why? The driver suggests that the reason may be that the diamond marks are not needed where there is a solid double line separating the diamond lane from the adjoining lane, but are needed when there is a dotted single line permitting crossing into the diamond lane. Further observation confirms that the diamonds are close together when a dotted line separates the diamond lane from its neighbour, but otherwise far apart.

Rash : A woman suddenly develops a very itchy red rash on her throat and upper chest. She recently noticed a mark on the back of her right hand, but was not sure whether the mark was a rash or a scrape. She lies down in bed and thinks about what might be causing the rash and what to do about it. About two weeks before, she began taking blood pressure medication that contained a sulfa drug, and the pharmacist had warned her, in view of a previous allergic reaction to a medication containing a sulfa drug, to be on the alert for an allergic reaction; however, she had been taking the medication for two weeks with no such effect. The day before, she began using a new cream on her neck and upper chest; against the new cream as the cause was mark on the back of her hand, which had not been exposed to the cream. She began taking probiotics about a month before. She also recently started new eye drops, but she supposed that manufacturers of eye drops would be careful not to include allergy-causing components in the medication. The rash might be a heat rash, since she recently was sweating profusely from her upper body. Since she is about to go away on a short vacation, where she would not have access to her usual physician, she decides to keep taking the probiotics and using the new eye drops but to discontinue the blood pressure medication and to switch back to the old cream for her neck and upper chest. She forms a plan to consult her regular physician on her return about the blood pressure medication.

Candidate : Although Dewey included no examples of thinking directed at appraising the arguments of others, such thinking has come to be considered a kind of critical thinking. We find an example of such thinking in the performance task on the Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA+), which its sponsoring organization describes as

a performance-based assessment that provides a measure of an institution’s contribution to the development of critical-thinking and written communication skills of its students. (Council for Aid to Education 2017)

A sample task posted on its website requires the test-taker to write a report for public distribution evaluating a fictional candidate’s policy proposals and their supporting arguments, using supplied background documents, with a recommendation on whether to endorse the candidate.

Immediate acceptance of an idea that suggests itself as a solution to a problem (e.g., a possible explanation of an event or phenomenon, an action that seems likely to produce a desired result) is “uncritical thinking, the minimum of reflection” (Dewey 1910: 13). On-going suspension of judgment in the light of doubt about a possible solution is not critical thinking (Dewey 1910: 108). Critique driven by a dogmatically held political or religious ideology is not critical thinking; thus Paulo Freire (1968 [1970]) is using the term (e.g., at 1970: 71, 81, 100, 146) in a more politically freighted sense that includes not only reflection but also revolutionary action against oppression. Derivation of a conclusion from given data using an algorithm is not critical thinking.

What is critical thinking? There are many definitions. Ennis (2016) lists 14 philosophically oriented scholarly definitions and three dictionary definitions. Following Rawls (1971), who distinguished his conception of justice from a utilitarian conception but regarded them as rival conceptions of the same concept, Ennis maintains that the 17 definitions are different conceptions of the same concept. Rawls articulated the shared concept of justice as

a characteristic set of principles for assigning basic rights and duties and for determining… the proper distribution of the benefits and burdens of social cooperation. (Rawls 1971: 5)

Bailin et al. (1999b) claim that, if one considers what sorts of thinking an educator would take not to be critical thinking and what sorts to be critical thinking, one can conclude that educators typically understand critical thinking to have at least three features.

• It is done for the purpose of making up one’s mind about what to believe or do.
• The person engaging in the thinking is trying to fulfill standards of adequacy and accuracy appropriate to the thinking.
• The thinking fulfills the relevant standards to some threshold level.

One could sum up the core concept that involves these three features by saying that critical thinking is careful goal-directed thinking. This core concept seems to apply to all the examples of critical thinking described in the previous section. As for the non-examples, their exclusion depends on construing careful thinking as excluding jumping immediately to conclusions, suspending judgment no matter how strong the evidence, reasoning from an unquestioned ideological or religious perspective, and routinely using an algorithm to answer a question.

If the core of critical thinking is careful goal-directed thinking, conceptions of it can vary according to its presumed scope, its presumed goal, one’s criteria and threshold for being careful, and the thinking component on which one focuses. As to its scope, some conceptions (e.g., Dewey 1910, 1933) restrict it to constructive thinking on the basis of one’s own observations and experiments, others (e.g., Ennis 1962; Fisher & Scriven 1997; Johnson 1992) to appraisal of the products of such thinking. Ennis (1991) and Bailin et al. (1999b) take it to cover both construction and appraisal. As to its goal, some conceptions restrict it to forming a judgment (Dewey 1910, 1933; Lipman 1987; Facione 1990a). Others allow for actions as well as beliefs as the end point of a process of critical thinking (Ennis 1991; Bailin et al. 1999b). As to the criteria and threshold for being careful, definitions vary in the term used to indicate that critical thinking satisfies certain norms: “intellectually disciplined” (Scriven & Paul 1987), “reasonable” (Ennis 1991), “skillful” (Lipman 1987), “skilled” (Fisher & Scriven 1997), “careful” (Bailin & Battersby 2009). Some definitions specify these norms, referring variously to “consideration of any belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the grounds that support it and the further conclusions to which it tends” (Dewey 1910, 1933); “the methods of logical inquiry and reasoning” (Glaser 1941); “conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication” (Scriven & Paul 1987); the requirement that “it is sensitive to context, relies on criteria, and is self-correcting” (Lipman 1987); “evidential, conceptual, methodological, criteriological, or contextual considerations” (Facione 1990a); and “plus-minus considerations of the product in terms of appropriate standards (or criteria)” (Johnson 1992). Stanovich and Stanovich (2010) propose to ground the concept of critical thinking in the concept of rationality, which they understand as combining epistemic rationality (fitting one’s beliefs to the world) and instrumental rationality (optimizing goal fulfillment); a critical thinker, in their view, is someone with “a propensity to override suboptimal responses from the autonomous mind” (2010: 227). These variant specifications of norms for critical thinking are not necessarily incompatible with one another, and in any case presuppose the core notion of thinking carefully. As to the thinking component singled out, some definitions focus on suspension of judgment during the thinking (Dewey 1910; McPeck 1981), others on inquiry while judgment is suspended (Bailin & Battersby 2009, 2021), others on the resulting judgment (Facione 1990a), and still others on responsiveness to reasons (Siegel 1988). Kuhn (2019) takes critical thinking to be more a dialogic practice of advancing and responding to arguments than an individual ability.

In educational contexts, a definition of critical thinking is a “programmatic definition” (Scheffler 1960: 19). It expresses a practical program for achieving an educational goal. For this purpose, a one-sentence formulaic definition is much less useful than articulation of a critical thinking process, with criteria and standards for the kinds of thinking that the process may involve. The real educational goal is recognition, adoption and implementation by students of those criteria and standards. That adoption and implementation in turn consists in acquiring the knowledge, abilities and dispositions of a critical thinker.

Conceptions of critical thinking generally do not include moral integrity as part of the concept. Dewey, for example, took critical thinking to be the ultimate intellectual goal of education, but distinguished it from the development of social cooperation among school children, which he took to be the central moral goal. Ennis (1996, 2011) added to his previous list of critical thinking dispositions a group of dispositions to care about the dignity and worth of every person, which he described as a “correlative” (1996) disposition without which critical thinking would be less valuable and perhaps harmful. An educational program that aimed at developing critical thinking but not the correlative disposition to care about the dignity and worth of every person, he asserted, “would be deficient and perhaps dangerous” (Ennis 1996: 172).

Dewey thought that education for reflective thinking would be of value to both the individual and society; recognition in educational practice of the kinship to the scientific attitude of children’s native curiosity, fertile imagination and love of experimental inquiry “would make for individual happiness and the reduction of social waste” (Dewey 1910: iii). Schools participating in the Eight-Year Study took development of the habit of reflective thinking and skill in solving problems as a means to leading young people to understand, appreciate and live the democratic way of life characteristic of the United States (Aikin 1942: 17–18, 81). Harvey Siegel (1988: 55–61) has offered four considerations in support of adopting critical thinking as an educational ideal. (1) Respect for persons requires that schools and teachers honour students’ demands for reasons and explanations, deal with students honestly, and recognize the need to confront students’ independent judgment; these requirements concern the manner in which teachers treat students. (2) Education has the task of preparing children to be successful adults, a task that requires development of their self-sufficiency. (3) Education should initiate children into the rational traditions in such fields as history, science and mathematics. (4) Education should prepare children to become democratic citizens, which requires reasoned procedures and critical talents and attitudes. To supplement these considerations, Siegel (1988: 62–90) responds to two objections: the ideology objection that adoption of any educational ideal requires a prior ideological commitment and the indoctrination objection that cultivation of critical thinking cannot escape being a form of indoctrination.

Despite the diversity of our 11 examples, one can recognize a common pattern. Dewey analyzed it as consisting of five phases:

• suggestions , in which the mind leaps forward to a possible solution;
• an intellectualization of the difficulty or perplexity into a problem to be solved, a question for which the answer must be sought;
• the use of one suggestion after another as a leading idea, or hypothesis , to initiate and guide observation and other operations in collection of factual material;
• the mental elaboration of the idea or supposition as an idea or supposition ( reasoning , in the sense on which reasoning is a part, not the whole, of inference); and
• testing the hypothesis by overt or imaginative action. (Dewey 1933: 106–107; italics in original)

The process of reflective thinking consisting of these phases would be preceded by a perplexed, troubled or confused situation and followed by a cleared-up, unified, resolved situation (Dewey 1933: 106). The term ‘phases’ replaced the term ‘steps’ (Dewey 1910: 72), thus removing the earlier suggestion of an invariant sequence. Variants of the above analysis appeared in (Dewey 1916: 177) and (Dewey 1938: 101–119).

The variant formulations indicate the difficulty of giving a single logical analysis of such a varied process. The process of critical thinking may have a spiral pattern, with the problem being redefined in the light of obstacles to solving it as originally formulated. For example, the person in Transit might have concluded that getting to the appointment at the scheduled time was impossible and have reformulated the problem as that of rescheduling the appointment for a mutually convenient time. Further, defining a problem does not always follow after or lead immediately to an idea of a suggested solution. Nor should it do so, as Dewey himself recognized in describing the physician in Typhoid as avoiding any strong preference for this or that conclusion before getting further information (Dewey 1910: 85; 1933: 170). People with a hypothesis in mind, even one to which they have a very weak commitment, have a so-called “confirmation bias” (Nickerson 1998): they are likely to pay attention to evidence that confirms the hypothesis and to ignore evidence that counts against it or for some competing hypothesis. Detectives, intelligence agencies, and investigators of airplane accidents are well advised to gather relevant evidence systematically and to postpone even tentative adoption of an explanatory hypothesis until the collected evidence rules out with the appropriate degree of certainty all but one explanation. Dewey’s analysis of the critical thinking process can be faulted as well for requiring acceptance or rejection of a possible solution to a defined problem, with no allowance for deciding in the light of the available evidence to suspend judgment. Further, given the great variety of kinds of problems for which reflection is appropriate, there is likely to be variation in its component events. Perhaps the best way to conceptualize the critical thinking process is as a checklist whose component events can occur in a variety of orders, selectively, and more than once. These component events might include (1) noticing a difficulty, (2) defining the problem, (3) dividing the problem into manageable sub-problems, (4) formulating a variety of possible solutions to the problem or sub-problem, (5) determining what evidence is relevant to deciding among possible solutions to the problem or sub-problem, (6) devising a plan of systematic observation or experiment that will uncover the relevant evidence, (7) carrying out the plan of systematic observation or experimentation, (8) noting the results of the systematic observation or experiment, (9) gathering relevant testimony and information from others, (10) judging the credibility of testimony and information gathered from others, (11) drawing conclusions from gathered evidence and accepted testimony, and (12) accepting a solution that the evidence adequately supports (cf. Hitchcock 2017: 485).

Checklist conceptions of the process of critical thinking are open to the objection that they are too mechanical and procedural to fit the multi-dimensional and emotionally charged issues for which critical thinking is urgently needed (Paul 1984). For such issues, a more dialectical process is advocated, in which competing relevant world views are identified, their implications explored, and some sort of creative synthesis attempted.

If one considers the critical thinking process illustrated by the 11 examples, one can identify distinct kinds of mental acts and mental states that form part of it. To distinguish, label and briefly characterize these components is a useful preliminary to identifying abilities, skills, dispositions, attitudes, habits and the like that contribute causally to thinking critically. Identifying such abilities and habits is in turn a useful preliminary to setting educational goals. Setting the goals is in its turn a useful preliminary to designing strategies for helping learners to achieve the goals and to designing ways of measuring the extent to which learners have done so. Such measures provide both feedback to learners on their achievement and a basis for experimental research on the effectiveness of various strategies for educating people to think critically. Let us begin, then, by distinguishing the kinds of mental acts and mental events that can occur in a critical thinking process.

• Observing : One notices something in one’s immediate environment (sudden cooling of temperature in Weather , bubbles forming outside a glass and then going inside in Bubbles , a moving blur in the distance in Blur , a rash in Rash ). Or one notes the results of an experiment or systematic observation (valuables missing in Disorder , no suction without air pressure in Suction pump )
• Feeling : One feels puzzled or uncertain about something (how to get to an appointment on time in Transit , why the diamonds vary in spacing in Diamond ). One wants to resolve this perplexity. One feels satisfaction once one has worked out an answer (to take the subway express in Transit , diamonds closer when needed as a warning in Diamond ).
• Wondering : One formulates a question to be addressed (why bubbles form outside a tumbler taken from hot water in Bubbles , how suction pumps work in Suction pump , what caused the rash in Rash ).
• Imagining : One thinks of possible answers (bus or subway or elevated in Transit , flagpole or ornament or wireless communication aid or direction indicator in Ferryboat , allergic reaction or heat rash in Rash ).
• Inferring : One works out what would be the case if a possible answer were assumed (valuables missing if there has been a burglary in Disorder , earlier start to the rash if it is an allergic reaction to a sulfa drug in Rash ). Or one draws a conclusion once sufficient relevant evidence is gathered (take the subway in Transit , burglary in Disorder , discontinue blood pressure medication and new cream in Rash ).
• Knowledge : One uses stored knowledge of the subject-matter to generate possible answers or to infer what would be expected on the assumption of a particular answer (knowledge of a city’s public transit system in Transit , of the requirements for a flagpole in Ferryboat , of Boyle’s law in Bubbles , of allergic reactions in Rash ).
• Experimenting : One designs and carries out an experiment or a systematic observation to find out whether the results deduced from a possible answer will occur (looking at the location of the flagpole in relation to the pilot’s position in Ferryboat , putting an ice cube on top of a tumbler taken from hot water in Bubbles , measuring the height to which a suction pump will draw water at different elevations in Suction pump , noticing the spacing of diamonds when movement to or from a diamond lane is allowed in Diamond ).
• Consulting : One finds a source of information, gets the information from the source, and makes a judgment on whether to accept it. None of our 11 examples include searching for sources of information. In this respect they are unrepresentative, since most people nowadays have almost instant access to information relevant to answering any question, including many of those illustrated by the examples. However, Candidate includes the activities of extracting information from sources and evaluating its credibility.
• Identifying and analyzing arguments : One notices an argument and works out its structure and content as a preliminary to evaluating its strength. This activity is central to Candidate . It is an important part of a critical thinking process in which one surveys arguments for various positions on an issue.
• Judging : One makes a judgment on the basis of accumulated evidence and reasoning, such as the judgment in Ferryboat that the purpose of the pole is to provide direction to the pilot.
• Deciding : One makes a decision on what to do or on what policy to adopt, as in the decision in Transit to take the subway.

By definition, a person who does something voluntarily is both willing and able to do that thing at that time. Both the willingness and the ability contribute causally to the person’s action, in the sense that the voluntary action would not occur if either (or both) of these were lacking. For example, suppose that one is standing with one’s arms at one’s sides and one voluntarily lifts one’s right arm to an extended horizontal position. One would not do so if one were unable to lift one’s arm, if for example one’s right side was paralyzed as the result of a stroke. Nor would one do so if one were unwilling to lift one’s arm, if for example one were participating in a street demonstration at which a white supremacist was urging the crowd to lift their right arm in a Nazi salute and one were unwilling to express support in this way for the racist Nazi ideology. The same analysis applies to a voluntary mental process of thinking critically. It requires both willingness and ability to think critically, including willingness and ability to perform each of the mental acts that compose the process and to coordinate those acts in a sequence that is directed at resolving the initiating perplexity.

Consider willingness first. We can identify causal contributors to willingness to think critically by considering factors that would cause a person who was able to think critically about an issue nevertheless not to do so (Hamby 2014). For each factor, the opposite condition thus contributes causally to willingness to think critically on a particular occasion. For example, people who habitually jump to conclusions without considering alternatives will not think critically about issues that arise, even if they have the required abilities. The contrary condition of willingness to suspend judgment is thus a causal contributor to thinking critically.

Now consider ability. In contrast to the ability to move one’s arm, which can be completely absent because a stroke has left the arm paralyzed, the ability to think critically is a developed ability, whose absence is not a complete absence of ability to think but absence of ability to think well. We can identify the ability to think well directly, in terms of the norms and standards for good thinking. In general, to be able do well the thinking activities that can be components of a critical thinking process, one needs to know the concepts and principles that characterize their good performance, to recognize in particular cases that the concepts and principles apply, and to apply them. The knowledge, recognition and application may be procedural rather than declarative. It may be domain-specific rather than widely applicable, and in either case may need subject-matter knowledge, sometimes of a deep kind.

Reflections of the sort illustrated by the previous two paragraphs have led scholars to identify the knowledge, abilities and dispositions of a “critical thinker”, i.e., someone who thinks critically whenever it is appropriate to do so. We turn now to these three types of causal contributors to thinking critically. We start with dispositions, since arguably these are the most powerful contributors to being a critical thinker, can be fostered at an early stage of a child’s development, and are susceptible to general improvement (Glaser 1941: 175)

8. Critical Thinking Dispositions

Educational researchers use the term ‘dispositions’ broadly for the habits of mind and attitudes that contribute causally to being a critical thinker. Some writers (e.g., Paul & Elder 2006; Hamby 2014; Bailin & Battersby 2016a) propose to use the term ‘virtues’ for this dimension of a critical thinker. The virtues in question, although they are virtues of character, concern the person’s ways of thinking rather than the person’s ways of behaving towards others. They are not moral virtues but intellectual virtues, of the sort articulated by Zagzebski (1996) and discussed by Turri, Alfano, and Greco (2017).

On a realistic conception, thinking dispositions or intellectual virtues are real properties of thinkers. They are general tendencies, propensities, or inclinations to think in particular ways in particular circumstances, and can be genuinely explanatory (Siegel 1999). Sceptics argue that there is no evidence for a specific mental basis for the habits of mind that contribute to thinking critically, and that it is pedagogically misleading to posit such a basis (Bailin et al. 1999a). Whatever their status, critical thinking dispositions need motivation for their initial formation in a child—motivation that may be external or internal. As children develop, the force of habit will gradually become important in sustaining the disposition (Nieto & Valenzuela 2012). Mere force of habit, however, is unlikely to sustain critical thinking dispositions. Critical thinkers must value and enjoy using their knowledge and abilities to think things through for themselves. They must be committed to, and lovers of, inquiry.

A person may have a critical thinking disposition with respect to only some kinds of issues. For example, one could be open-minded about scientific issues but not about religious issues. Similarly, one could be confident in one’s ability to reason about the theological implications of the existence of evil in the world but not in one’s ability to reason about the best design for a guided ballistic missile.

Facione (1990a: 25) divides “affective dispositions” of critical thinking into approaches to life and living in general and approaches to specific issues, questions or problems. Adapting this distinction, one can usefully divide critical thinking dispositions into initiating dispositions (those that contribute causally to starting to think critically about an issue) and internal dispositions (those that contribute causally to doing a good job of thinking critically once one has started). The two categories are not mutually exclusive. For example, open-mindedness, in the sense of willingness to consider alternative points of view to one’s own, is both an initiating and an internal disposition.

Using the strategy of considering factors that would block people with the ability to think critically from doing so, we can identify as initiating dispositions for thinking critically attentiveness, a habit of inquiry, self-confidence, courage, open-mindedness, willingness to suspend judgment, trust in reason, wanting evidence for one’s beliefs, and seeking the truth. We consider briefly what each of these dispositions amounts to, in each case citing sources that acknowledge them.

• Attentiveness : One will not think critically if one fails to recognize an issue that needs to be thought through. For example, the pedestrian in Weather would not have looked up if he had not noticed that the air was suddenly cooler. To be a critical thinker, then, one needs to be habitually attentive to one’s surroundings, noticing not only what one senses but also sources of perplexity in messages received and in one’s own beliefs and attitudes (Facione 1990a: 25; Facione, Facione, & Giancarlo 2001).
• Habit of inquiry : Inquiry is effortful, and one needs an internal push to engage in it. For example, the student in Bubbles could easily have stopped at idle wondering about the cause of the bubbles rather than reasoning to a hypothesis, then designing and executing an experiment to test it. Thus willingness to think critically needs mental energy and initiative. What can supply that energy? Love of inquiry, or perhaps just a habit of inquiry. Hamby (2015) has argued that willingness to inquire is the central critical thinking virtue, one that encompasses all the others. It is recognized as a critical thinking disposition by Dewey (1910: 29; 1933: 35), Glaser (1941: 5), Ennis (1987: 12; 1991: 8), Facione (1990a: 25), Bailin et al. (1999b: 294), Halpern (1998: 452), and Facione, Facione, & Giancarlo (2001).
• Self-confidence : Lack of confidence in one’s abilities can block critical thinking. For example, if the woman in Rash lacked confidence in her ability to figure things out for herself, she might just have assumed that the rash on her chest was the allergic reaction to her medication against which the pharmacist had warned her. Thus willingness to think critically requires confidence in one’s ability to inquire (Facione 1990a: 25; Facione, Facione, & Giancarlo 2001).
• Courage : Fear of thinking for oneself can stop one from doing it. Thus willingness to think critically requires intellectual courage (Paul & Elder 2006: 16).
• Open-mindedness : A dogmatic attitude will impede thinking critically. For example, a person who adheres rigidly to a “pro-choice” position on the issue of the legal status of induced abortion is likely to be unwilling to consider seriously the issue of when in its development an unborn child acquires a moral right to life. Thus willingness to think critically requires open-mindedness, in the sense of a willingness to examine questions to which one already accepts an answer but which further evidence or reasoning might cause one to answer differently (Dewey 1933; Facione 1990a; Ennis 1991; Bailin et al. 1999b; Halpern 1998, Facione, Facione, & Giancarlo 2001). Paul (1981) emphasizes open-mindedness about alternative world-views, and recommends a dialectical approach to integrating such views as central to what he calls “strong sense” critical thinking. In three studies, Haran, Ritov, & Mellers (2013) found that actively open-minded thinking, including “the tendency to weigh new evidence against a favored belief, to spend sufficient time on a problem before giving up, and to consider carefully the opinions of others in forming one’s own”, led study participants to acquire information and thus to make accurate estimations.
• Willingness to suspend judgment : Premature closure on an initial solution will block critical thinking. Thus willingness to think critically requires a willingness to suspend judgment while alternatives are explored (Facione 1990a; Ennis 1991; Halpern 1998).
• Trust in reason : Since distrust in the processes of reasoned inquiry will dissuade one from engaging in it, trust in them is an initiating critical thinking disposition (Facione 1990a, 25; Bailin et al. 1999b: 294; Facione, Facione, & Giancarlo 2001; Paul & Elder 2006). In reaction to an allegedly exclusive emphasis on reason in critical thinking theory and pedagogy, Thayer-Bacon (2000) argues that intuition, imagination, and emotion have important roles to play in an adequate conception of critical thinking that she calls “constructive thinking”. From her point of view, critical thinking requires trust not only in reason but also in intuition, imagination, and emotion.
• Seeking the truth : If one does not care about the truth but is content to stick with one’s initial bias on an issue, then one will not think critically about it. Seeking the truth is thus an initiating critical thinking disposition (Bailin et al. 1999b: 294; Facione, Facione, & Giancarlo 2001). A disposition to seek the truth is implicit in more specific critical thinking dispositions, such as trying to be well-informed, considering seriously points of view other than one’s own, looking for alternatives, suspending judgment when the evidence is insufficient, and adopting a position when the evidence supporting it is sufficient.

Some of the initiating dispositions, such as open-mindedness and willingness to suspend judgment, are also internal critical thinking dispositions, in the sense of mental habits or attitudes that contribute causally to doing a good job of critical thinking once one starts the process. But there are many other internal critical thinking dispositions. Some of them are parasitic on one’s conception of good thinking. For example, it is constitutive of good thinking about an issue to formulate the issue clearly and to maintain focus on it. For this purpose, one needs not only the corresponding ability but also the corresponding disposition. Ennis (1991: 8) describes it as the disposition “to determine and maintain focus on the conclusion or question”, Facione (1990a: 25) as “clarity in stating the question or concern”. Other internal dispositions are motivators to continue or adjust the critical thinking process, such as willingness to persist in a complex task and willingness to abandon nonproductive strategies in an attempt to self-correct (Halpern 1998: 452). For a list of identified internal critical thinking dispositions, see the Supplement on Internal Critical Thinking Dispositions .

Some theorists postulate skills, i.e., acquired abilities, as operative in critical thinking. It is not obvious, however, that a good mental act is the exercise of a generic acquired skill. Inferring an expected time of arrival, as in Transit , has some generic components but also uses non-generic subject-matter knowledge. Bailin et al. (1999a) argue against viewing critical thinking skills as generic and discrete, on the ground that skilled performance at a critical thinking task cannot be separated from knowledge of concepts and from domain-specific principles of good thinking. Talk of skills, they concede, is unproblematic if it means merely that a person with critical thinking skills is capable of intelligent performance.

Despite such scepticism, theorists of critical thinking have listed as general contributors to critical thinking what they variously call abilities (Glaser 1941; Ennis 1962, 1991), skills (Facione 1990a; Halpern 1998) or competencies (Fisher & Scriven 1997). Amalgamating these lists would produce a confusing and chaotic cornucopia of more than 50 possible educational objectives, with only partial overlap among them. It makes sense instead to try to understand the reasons for the multiplicity and diversity, and to make a selection according to one’s own reasons for singling out abilities to be developed in a critical thinking curriculum. Two reasons for diversity among lists of critical thinking abilities are the underlying conception of critical thinking and the envisaged educational level. Appraisal-only conceptions, for example, involve a different suite of abilities than constructive-only conceptions. Some lists, such as those in (Glaser 1941), are put forward as educational objectives for secondary school students, whereas others are proposed as objectives for college students (e.g., Facione 1990a).

The abilities described in the remaining paragraphs of this section emerge from reflection on the general abilities needed to do well the thinking activities identified in section 6 as components of the critical thinking process described in section 5 . The derivation of each collection of abilities is accompanied by citation of sources that list such abilities and of standardized tests that claim to test them.

Observational abilities : Careful and accurate observation sometimes requires specialist expertise and practice, as in the case of observing birds and observing accident scenes. However, there are general abilities of noticing what one’s senses are picking up from one’s environment and of being able to articulate clearly and accurately to oneself and others what one has observed. It helps in exercising them to be able to recognize and take into account factors that make one’s observation less trustworthy, such as prior framing of the situation, inadequate time, deficient senses, poor observation conditions, and the like. It helps as well to be skilled at taking steps to make one’s observation more trustworthy, such as moving closer to get a better look, measuring something three times and taking the average, and checking what one thinks one is observing with someone else who is in a good position to observe it. It also helps to be skilled at recognizing respects in which one’s report of one’s observation involves inference rather than direct observation, so that one can then consider whether the inference is justified. These abilities come into play as well when one thinks about whether and with what degree of confidence to accept an observation report, for example in the study of history or in a criminal investigation or in assessing news reports. Observational abilities show up in some lists of critical thinking abilities (Ennis 1962: 90; Facione 1990a: 16; Ennis 1991: 9). There are items testing a person’s ability to judge the credibility of observation reports in the Cornell Critical Thinking Tests, Levels X and Z (Ennis & Millman 1971; Ennis, Millman, & Tomko 1985, 2005). Norris and King (1983, 1985, 1990a, 1990b) is a test of ability to appraise observation reports.

Emotional abilities : The emotions that drive a critical thinking process are perplexity or puzzlement, a wish to resolve it, and satisfaction at achieving the desired resolution. Children experience these emotions at an early age, without being trained to do so. Education that takes critical thinking as a goal needs only to channel these emotions and to make sure not to stifle them. Collaborative critical thinking benefits from ability to recognize one’s own and others’ emotional commitments and reactions.

Questioning abilities : A critical thinking process needs transformation of an inchoate sense of perplexity into a clear question. Formulating a question well requires not building in questionable assumptions, not prejudging the issue, and using language that in context is unambiguous and precise enough (Ennis 1962: 97; 1991: 9).

Imaginative abilities : Thinking directed at finding the correct causal explanation of a general phenomenon or particular event requires an ability to imagine possible explanations. Thinking about what policy or plan of action to adopt requires generation of options and consideration of possible consequences of each option. Domain knowledge is required for such creative activity, but a general ability to imagine alternatives is helpful and can be nurtured so as to become easier, quicker, more extensive, and deeper (Dewey 1910: 34–39; 1933: 40–47). Facione (1990a) and Halpern (1998) include the ability to imagine alternatives as a critical thinking ability.

Inferential abilities : The ability to draw conclusions from given information, and to recognize with what degree of certainty one’s own or others’ conclusions follow, is universally recognized as a general critical thinking ability. All 11 examples in section 2 of this article include inferences, some from hypotheses or options (as in Transit , Ferryboat and Disorder ), others from something observed (as in Weather and Rash ). None of these inferences is formally valid. Rather, they are licensed by general, sometimes qualified substantive rules of inference (Toulmin 1958) that rest on domain knowledge—that a bus trip takes about the same time in each direction, that the terminal of a wireless telegraph would be located on the highest possible place, that sudden cooling is often followed by rain, that an allergic reaction to a sulfa drug generally shows up soon after one starts taking it. It is a matter of controversy to what extent the specialized ability to deduce conclusions from premisses using formal rules of inference is needed for critical thinking. Dewey (1933) locates logical forms in setting out the products of reflection rather than in the process of reflection. Ennis (1981a), on the other hand, maintains that a liberally-educated person should have the following abilities: to translate natural-language statements into statements using the standard logical operators, to use appropriately the language of necessary and sufficient conditions, to deal with argument forms and arguments containing symbols, to determine whether in virtue of an argument’s form its conclusion follows necessarily from its premisses, to reason with logically complex propositions, and to apply the rules and procedures of deductive logic. Inferential abilities are recognized as critical thinking abilities by Glaser (1941: 6), Facione (1990a: 9), Ennis (1991: 9), Fisher & Scriven (1997: 99, 111), and Halpern (1998: 452). Items testing inferential abilities constitute two of the five subtests of the Watson Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal (Watson & Glaser 1980a, 1980b, 1994), two of the four sections in the Cornell Critical Thinking Test Level X (Ennis & Millman 1971; Ennis, Millman, & Tomko 1985, 2005), three of the seven sections in the Cornell Critical Thinking Test Level Z (Ennis & Millman 1971; Ennis, Millman, & Tomko 1985, 2005), 11 of the 34 items on Forms A and B of the California Critical Thinking Skills Test (Facione 1990b, 1992), and a high but variable proportion of the 25 selected-response questions in the Collegiate Learning Assessment (Council for Aid to Education 2017).

Experimenting abilities : Knowing how to design and execute an experiment is important not just in scientific research but also in everyday life, as in Rash . Dewey devoted a whole chapter of his How We Think (1910: 145–156; 1933: 190–202) to the superiority of experimentation over observation in advancing knowledge. Experimenting abilities come into play at one remove in appraising reports of scientific studies. Skill in designing and executing experiments includes the acknowledged abilities to appraise evidence (Glaser 1941: 6), to carry out experiments and to apply appropriate statistical inference techniques (Facione 1990a: 9), to judge inductions to an explanatory hypothesis (Ennis 1991: 9), and to recognize the need for an adequately large sample size (Halpern 1998). The Cornell Critical Thinking Test Level Z (Ennis & Millman 1971; Ennis, Millman, & Tomko 1985, 2005) includes four items (out of 52) on experimental design. The Collegiate Learning Assessment (Council for Aid to Education 2017) makes room for appraisal of study design in both its performance task and its selected-response questions.

Consulting abilities : Skill at consulting sources of information comes into play when one seeks information to help resolve a problem, as in Candidate . Ability to find and appraise information includes ability to gather and marshal pertinent information (Glaser 1941: 6), to judge whether a statement made by an alleged authority is acceptable (Ennis 1962: 84), to plan a search for desired information (Facione 1990a: 9), and to judge the credibility of a source (Ennis 1991: 9). Ability to judge the credibility of statements is tested by 24 items (out of 76) in the Cornell Critical Thinking Test Level X (Ennis & Millman 1971; Ennis, Millman, & Tomko 1985, 2005) and by four items (out of 52) in the Cornell Critical Thinking Test Level Z (Ennis & Millman 1971; Ennis, Millman, & Tomko 1985, 2005). The College Learning Assessment’s performance task requires evaluation of whether information in documents is credible or unreliable (Council for Aid to Education 2017).

Argument analysis abilities : The ability to identify and analyze arguments contributes to the process of surveying arguments on an issue in order to form one’s own reasoned judgment, as in Candidate . The ability to detect and analyze arguments is recognized as a critical thinking skill by Facione (1990a: 7–8), Ennis (1991: 9) and Halpern (1998). Five items (out of 34) on the California Critical Thinking Skills Test (Facione 1990b, 1992) test skill at argument analysis. The College Learning Assessment (Council for Aid to Education 2017) incorporates argument analysis in its selected-response tests of critical reading and evaluation and of critiquing an argument.

Judging skills and deciding skills : Skill at judging and deciding is skill at recognizing what judgment or decision the available evidence and argument supports, and with what degree of confidence. It is thus a component of the inferential skills already discussed.

Lists and tests of critical thinking abilities often include two more abilities: identifying assumptions and constructing and evaluating definitions.

In addition to dispositions and abilities, critical thinking needs knowledge: of critical thinking concepts, of critical thinking principles, and of the subject-matter of the thinking.

We can derive a short list of concepts whose understanding contributes to critical thinking from the critical thinking abilities described in the preceding section. Observational abilities require an understanding of the difference between observation and inference. Questioning abilities require an understanding of the concepts of ambiguity and vagueness. Inferential abilities require an understanding of the difference between conclusive and defeasible inference (traditionally, between deduction and induction), as well as of the difference between necessary and sufficient conditions. Experimenting abilities require an understanding of the concepts of hypothesis, null hypothesis, assumption and prediction, as well as of the concept of statistical significance and of its difference from importance. They also require an understanding of the difference between an experiment and an observational study, and in particular of the difference between a randomized controlled trial, a prospective correlational study and a retrospective (case-control) study. Argument analysis abilities require an understanding of the concepts of argument, premiss, assumption, conclusion and counter-consideration. Additional critical thinking concepts are proposed by Bailin et al. (1999b: 293), Fisher & Scriven (1997: 105–106), Black (2012), and Blair (2021).

According to Glaser (1941: 25), ability to think critically requires knowledge of the methods of logical inquiry and reasoning. If we review the list of abilities in the preceding section, however, we can see that some of them can be acquired and exercised merely through practice, possibly guided in an educational setting, followed by feedback. Searching intelligently for a causal explanation of some phenomenon or event requires that one consider a full range of possible causal contributors, but it seems more important that one implements this principle in one’s practice than that one is able to articulate it. What is important is “operational knowledge” of the standards and principles of good thinking (Bailin et al. 1999b: 291–293). But the development of such critical thinking abilities as designing an experiment or constructing an operational definition can benefit from learning their underlying theory. Further, explicit knowledge of quirks of human thinking seems useful as a cautionary guide. Human memory is not just fallible about details, as people learn from their own experiences of misremembering, but is so malleable that a detailed, clear and vivid recollection of an event can be a total fabrication (Loftus 2017). People seek or interpret evidence in ways that are partial to their existing beliefs and expectations, often unconscious of their “confirmation bias” (Nickerson 1998). Not only are people subject to this and other cognitive biases (Kahneman 2011), of which they are typically unaware, but it may be counter-productive for one to make oneself aware of them and try consciously to counteract them or to counteract social biases such as racial or sexual stereotypes (Kenyon & Beaulac 2014). It is helpful to be aware of these facts and of the superior effectiveness of blocking the operation of biases—for example, by making an immediate record of one’s observations, refraining from forming a preliminary explanatory hypothesis, blind refereeing, double-blind randomized trials, and blind grading of students’ work. It is also helpful to be aware of the prevalence of “noise” (unwanted unsystematic variability of judgments), of how to detect noise (through a noise audit), and of how to reduce noise: make accuracy the goal, think statistically, break a process of arriving at a judgment into independent tasks, resist premature intuitions, in a group get independent judgments first, favour comparative judgments and scales (Kahneman, Sibony, & Sunstein 2021). It is helpful as well to be aware of the concept of “bounded rationality” in decision-making and of the related distinction between “satisficing” and optimizing (Simon 1956; Gigerenzer 2001).

Critical thinking about an issue requires substantive knowledge of the domain to which the issue belongs. Critical thinking abilities are not a magic elixir that can be applied to any issue whatever by somebody who has no knowledge of the facts relevant to exploring that issue. For example, the student in Bubbles needed to know that gases do not penetrate solid objects like a glass, that air expands when heated, that the volume of an enclosed gas varies directly with its temperature and inversely with its pressure, and that hot objects will spontaneously cool down to the ambient temperature of their surroundings unless kept hot by insulation or a source of heat. Critical thinkers thus need a rich fund of subject-matter knowledge relevant to the variety of situations they encounter. This fact is recognized in the inclusion among critical thinking dispositions of a concern to become and remain generally well informed.

Experimental educational interventions, with control groups, have shown that education can improve critical thinking skills and dispositions, as measured by standardized tests. For information about these tests, see the Supplement on Assessment .

What educational methods are most effective at developing the dispositions, abilities and knowledge of a critical thinker? In a comprehensive meta-analysis of experimental and quasi-experimental studies of strategies for teaching students to think critically, Abrami et al. (2015) found that dialogue, anchored instruction, and mentoring each increased the effectiveness of the educational intervention, and that they were most effective when combined. They also found that in these studies a combination of separate instruction in critical thinking with subject-matter instruction in which students are encouraged to think critically was more effective than either by itself. However, the difference was not statistically significant; that is, it might have arisen by chance.

Most of these studies lack the longitudinal follow-up required to determine whether the observed differential improvements in critical thinking abilities or dispositions continue over time, for example until high school or college graduation. For details on studies of methods of developing critical thinking skills and dispositions, see the Supplement on Educational Methods .

12. Controversies

Scholars have denied the generalizability of critical thinking abilities across subject domains, have alleged bias in critical thinking theory and pedagogy, and have investigated the relationship of critical thinking to other kinds of thinking.

McPeck (1981) attacked the thinking skills movement of the 1970s, including the critical thinking movement. He argued that there are no general thinking skills, since thinking is always thinking about some subject-matter. It is futile, he claimed, for schools and colleges to teach thinking as if it were a separate subject. Rather, teachers should lead their pupils to become autonomous thinkers by teaching school subjects in a way that brings out their cognitive structure and that encourages and rewards discussion and argument. As some of his critics (e.g., Paul 1985; Siegel 1985) pointed out, McPeck’s central argument needs elaboration, since it has obvious counter-examples in writing and speaking, for which (up to a certain level of complexity) there are teachable general abilities even though they are always about some subject-matter. To make his argument convincing, McPeck needs to explain how thinking differs from writing and speaking in a way that does not permit useful abstraction of its components from the subject-matters with which it deals. He has not done so. Nevertheless, his position that the dispositions and abilities of a critical thinker are best developed in the context of subject-matter instruction is shared by many theorists of critical thinking, including Dewey (1910, 1933), Glaser (1941), Passmore (1980), Weinstein (1990), Bailin et al. (1999b), and Willingham (2019).

McPeck’s challenge prompted reflection on the extent to which critical thinking is subject-specific. McPeck argued for a strong subject-specificity thesis, according to which it is a conceptual truth that all critical thinking abilities are specific to a subject. (He did not however extend his subject-specificity thesis to critical thinking dispositions. In particular, he took the disposition to suspend judgment in situations of cognitive dissonance to be a general disposition.) Conceptual subject-specificity is subject to obvious counter-examples, such as the general ability to recognize confusion of necessary and sufficient conditions. A more modest thesis, also endorsed by McPeck, is epistemological subject-specificity, according to which the norms of good thinking vary from one field to another. Epistemological subject-specificity clearly holds to a certain extent; for example, the principles in accordance with which one solves a differential equation are quite different from the principles in accordance with which one determines whether a painting is a genuine Picasso. But the thesis suffers, as Ennis (1989) points out, from vagueness of the concept of a field or subject and from the obvious existence of inter-field principles, however broadly the concept of a field is construed. For example, the principles of hypothetico-deductive reasoning hold for all the varied fields in which such reasoning occurs. A third kind of subject-specificity is empirical subject-specificity, according to which as a matter of empirically observable fact a person with the abilities and dispositions of a critical thinker in one area of investigation will not necessarily have them in another area of investigation.

The thesis of empirical subject-specificity raises the general problem of transfer. If critical thinking abilities and dispositions have to be developed independently in each school subject, how are they of any use in dealing with the problems of everyday life and the political and social issues of contemporary society, most of which do not fit into the framework of a traditional school subject? Proponents of empirical subject-specificity tend to argue that transfer is more likely to occur if there is critical thinking instruction in a variety of domains, with explicit attention to dispositions and abilities that cut across domains. But evidence for this claim is scanty. There is a need for well-designed empirical studies that investigate the conditions that make transfer more likely.

It is common ground in debates about the generality or subject-specificity of critical thinking dispositions and abilities that critical thinking about any topic requires background knowledge about the topic. For example, the most sophisticated understanding of the principles of hypothetico-deductive reasoning is of no help unless accompanied by some knowledge of what might be plausible explanations of some phenomenon under investigation.

Critics have objected to bias in the theory, pedagogy and practice of critical thinking. Commentators (e.g., Alston 1995; Ennis 1998) have noted that anyone who takes a position has a bias in the neutral sense of being inclined in one direction rather than others. The critics, however, are objecting to bias in the pejorative sense of an unjustified favoring of certain ways of knowing over others, frequently alleging that the unjustly favoured ways are those of a dominant sex or culture (Bailin 1995). These ways favour:

• reinforcement of egocentric and sociocentric biases over dialectical engagement with opposing world-views (Paul 1981, 1984; Warren 1998)
• distancing from the object of inquiry over closeness to it (Martin 1992; Thayer-Bacon 1992)
• indifference to the situation of others over care for them (Martin 1992)
• orientation to thought over orientation to action (Martin 1992)
• being reasonable over caring to understand people’s ideas (Thayer-Bacon 1993)
• being neutral and objective over being embodied and situated (Thayer-Bacon 1995a)
• doubting over believing (Thayer-Bacon 1995b)
• reason over emotion, imagination and intuition (Thayer-Bacon 2000)
• solitary thinking over collaborative thinking (Thayer-Bacon 2000)
• written and spoken assignments over other forms of expression (Alston 2001)
• attention to written and spoken communications over attention to human problems (Alston 2001)
• winning debates in the public sphere over making and understanding meaning (Alston 2001)

A common thread in this smorgasbord of accusations is dissatisfaction with focusing on the logical analysis and evaluation of reasoning and arguments. While these authors acknowledge that such analysis and evaluation is part of critical thinking and should be part of its conceptualization and pedagogy, they insist that it is only a part. Paul (1981), for example, bemoans the tendency of atomistic teaching of methods of analyzing and evaluating arguments to turn students into more able sophists, adept at finding fault with positions and arguments with which they disagree but even more entrenched in the egocentric and sociocentric biases with which they began. Martin (1992) and Thayer-Bacon (1992) cite with approval the self-reported intimacy with their subject-matter of leading researchers in biology and medicine, an intimacy that conflicts with the distancing allegedly recommended in standard conceptions and pedagogy of critical thinking. Thayer-Bacon (2000) contrasts the embodied and socially embedded learning of her elementary school students in a Montessori school, who used their imagination, intuition and emotions as well as their reason, with conceptions of critical thinking as

thinking that is used to critique arguments, offer justifications, and make judgments about what are the good reasons, or the right answers. (Thayer-Bacon 2000: 127–128)

Alston (2001) reports that her students in a women’s studies class were able to see the flaws in the Cinderella myth that pervades much romantic fiction but in their own romantic relationships still acted as if all failures were the woman’s fault and still accepted the notions of love at first sight and living happily ever after. Students, she writes, should

be able to connect their intellectual critique to a more affective, somatic, and ethical account of making risky choices that have sexist, racist, classist, familial, sexual, or other consequences for themselves and those both near and far… critical thinking that reads arguments, texts, or practices merely on the surface without connections to feeling/desiring/doing or action lacks an ethical depth that should infuse the difference between mere cognitive activity and something we want to call critical thinking. (Alston 2001: 34)

Some critics portray such biases as unfair to women. Thayer-Bacon (1992), for example, has charged modern critical thinking theory with being sexist, on the ground that it separates the self from the object and causes one to lose touch with one’s inner voice, and thus stigmatizes women, who (she asserts) link self to object and listen to their inner voice. Her charge does not imply that women as a group are on average less able than men to analyze and evaluate arguments. Facione (1990c) found no difference by sex in performance on his California Critical Thinking Skills Test. Kuhn (1991: 280–281) found no difference by sex in either the disposition or the competence to engage in argumentative thinking.

The critics propose a variety of remedies for the biases that they allege. In general, they do not propose to eliminate or downplay critical thinking as an educational goal. Rather, they propose to conceptualize critical thinking differently and to change its pedagogy accordingly. Their pedagogical proposals arise logically from their objections. They can be summarized as follows:

• Focus on argument networks with dialectical exchanges reflecting contesting points of view rather than on atomic arguments, so as to develop “strong sense” critical thinking that transcends egocentric and sociocentric biases (Paul 1981, 1984).
• Foster closeness to the subject-matter and feeling connected to others in order to inform a humane democracy (Martin 1992).
• Develop “constructive thinking” as a social activity in a community of physically embodied and socially embedded inquirers with personal voices who value not only reason but also imagination, intuition and emotion (Thayer-Bacon 2000).
• In developing critical thinking in school subjects, treat as important neither skills nor dispositions but opening worlds of meaning (Alston 2001).
• Attend to the development of critical thinking dispositions as well as skills, and adopt the “critical pedagogy” practised and advocated by Freire (1968 [1970]) and hooks (1994) (Dalgleish, Girard, & Davies 2017).

A common thread in these proposals is treatment of critical thinking as a social, interactive, personally engaged activity like that of a quilting bee or a barn-raising (Thayer-Bacon 2000) rather than as an individual, solitary, distanced activity symbolized by Rodin’s The Thinker . One can get a vivid description of education with the former type of goal from the writings of bell hooks (1994, 2010). Critical thinking for her is open-minded dialectical exchange across opposing standpoints and from multiple perspectives, a conception similar to Paul’s “strong sense” critical thinking (Paul 1981). She abandons the structure of domination in the traditional classroom. In an introductory course on black women writers, for example, she assigns students to write an autobiographical paragraph about an early racial memory, then to read it aloud as the others listen, thus affirming the uniqueness and value of each voice and creating a communal awareness of the diversity of the group’s experiences (hooks 1994: 84). Her “engaged pedagogy” is thus similar to the “freedom under guidance” implemented in John Dewey’s Laboratory School of Chicago in the late 1890s and early 1900s. It incorporates the dialogue, anchored instruction, and mentoring that Abrami (2015) found to be most effective in improving critical thinking skills and dispositions.

What is the relationship of critical thinking to problem solving, decision-making, higher-order thinking, creative thinking, and other recognized types of thinking? One’s answer to this question obviously depends on how one defines the terms used in the question. If critical thinking is conceived broadly to cover any careful thinking about any topic for any purpose, then problem solving and decision making will be kinds of critical thinking, if they are done carefully. Historically, ‘critical thinking’ and ‘problem solving’ were two names for the same thing. If critical thinking is conceived more narrowly as consisting solely of appraisal of intellectual products, then it will be disjoint with problem solving and decision making, which are constructive.

Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives used the phrase “intellectual abilities and skills” for what had been labeled “critical thinking” by some, “reflective thinking” by Dewey and others, and “problem solving” by still others (Bloom et al. 1956: 38). Thus, the so-called “higher-order thinking skills” at the taxonomy’s top levels of analysis, synthesis and evaluation are just critical thinking skills, although they do not come with general criteria for their assessment (Ennis 1981b). The revised version of Bloom’s taxonomy (Anderson et al. 2001) likewise treats critical thinking as cutting across those types of cognitive process that involve more than remembering (Anderson et al. 2001: 269–270). For details, see the Supplement on History .

As to creative thinking, it overlaps with critical thinking (Bailin 1987, 1988). Thinking about the explanation of some phenomenon or event, as in Ferryboat , requires creative imagination in constructing plausible explanatory hypotheses. Likewise, thinking about a policy question, as in Candidate , requires creativity in coming up with options. Conversely, creativity in any field needs to be balanced by critical appraisal of the draft painting or novel or mathematical theory.

• Abrami, Philip C., Robert M. Bernard, Eugene Borokhovski, David I. Waddington, C. Anne Wade, and Tonje Person, 2015, “Strategies for Teaching Students to Think Critically: A Meta-analysis”, Review of Educational Research , 85(2): 275–314. doi:10.3102/0034654314551063
• Aikin, Wilford M., 1942, The Story of the Eight-year Study, with Conclusions and Recommendations , Volume I of Adventure in American Education , New York and London: Harper & Brothers. [ Aikin 1942 available online ]
• Alston, Kal, 1995, “Begging the Question: Is Critical Thinking Biased?”, Educational Theory , 45(2): 225–233. doi:10.1111/j.1741-5446.1995.00225.x
• –––, 2001, “Re/Thinking Critical Thinking: The Seductions of Everyday Life”, Studies in Philosophy and Education , 20(1): 27–40. doi:10.1023/A:1005247128053
• American Educational Research Association, 2014, Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing / American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, National Council on Measurement in Education , Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
• Anderson, Lorin W., David R. Krathwohl, Peter W. Airiasian, Kathleen A. Cruikshank, Richard E. Mayer, Paul R. Pintrich, James Raths, and Merlin C. Wittrock, 2001, A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives , New York: Longman, complete edition.
• Bailin, Sharon, 1987, “Critical and Creative Thinking”, Informal Logic , 9(1): 23–30. [ Bailin 1987 available online ]
• –––, 1988, Achieving Extraordinary Ends: An Essay on Creativity , Dordrecht: Kluwer. doi:10.1007/978-94-009-2780-3
• –––, 1995, “Is Critical Thinking Biased? Clarifications and Implications”, Educational Theory , 45(2): 191–197. doi:10.1111/j.1741-5446.1995.00191.x
• Bailin, Sharon and Mark Battersby, 2009, “Inquiry: A Dialectical Approach to Teaching Critical Thinking”, in Juho Ritola (ed.), Argument Cultures: Proceedings of OSSA 09 , CD-ROM (pp. 1–10), Windsor, ON: OSSA. [ Bailin & Battersby 2009 available online ]
• –––, 2016a, “Fostering the Virtues of Inquiry”, Topoi , 35(2): 367–374. doi:10.1007/s11245-015-9307-6
• –––, 2016b, Reason in the Balance: An Inquiry Approach to Critical Thinking , Indianapolis: Hackett, 2nd edition.
• –––, 2021, “Inquiry: Teaching for Reasoned Judgment”, in Daniel Fasko, Jr. and Frank Fair (eds.), Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Theory, Development, Instruction, and Assessment , Leiden: Brill, pp. 31–46. doi: 10.1163/9789004444591_003
• Bailin, Sharon, Roland Case, Jerrold R. Coombs, and Leroi B. Daniels, 1999a, “Common Misconceptions of Critical Thinking”, Journal of Curriculum Studies , 31(3): 269–283. doi:10.1080/002202799183124
• –––, 1999b, “Conceptualizing Critical Thinking”, Journal of Curriculum Studies , 31(3): 285–302. doi:10.1080/002202799183133
• Blair, J. Anthony, 2021, Studies in Critical Thinking , Windsor, ON: Windsor Studies in Argumentation, 2nd edition. [Available online at https://windsor.scholarsportal.info/omp/index.php/wsia/catalog/book/106]
• Berman, Alan M., Seth J. Schwartz, William M. Kurtines, and Steven L. Berman, 2001, “The Process of Exploration in Identity Formation: The Role of Style and Competence”, Journal of Adolescence , 24(4): 513–528. doi:10.1006/jado.2001.0386
• Black, Beth (ed.), 2012, An A to Z of Critical Thinking , London: Continuum International Publishing Group.
• Bloom, Benjamin Samuel, Max D. Engelhart, Edward J. Furst, Walter H. Hill, and David R. Krathwohl, 1956, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Handbook I: Cognitive Domain , New York: David McKay.
• Boardman, Frank, Nancy M. Cavender, and Howard Kahane, 2018, Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric: The Use of Reason in Everyday Life , Boston: Cengage, 13th edition.
• Browne, M. Neil and Stuart M. Keeley, 2018, Asking the Right Questions: A Guide to Critical Thinking , Hoboken, NJ: Pearson, 12th edition.
• Center for Assessment & Improvement of Learning, 2017, Critical Thinking Assessment Test , Cookeville, TN: Tennessee Technological University.
• Cleghorn, Paul. 2021. “Critical Thinking in the Elementary School: Practical Guidance for Building a Culture of Thinking”, in Daniel Fasko, Jr. and Frank Fair (eds.), Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Theory, Development, Instruction, and Assessmen t, Leiden: Brill, pp. 150–167. doi: 10.1163/9789004444591_010
• Cohen, Jacob, 1988, Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences , Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2nd edition.
• College Board, 1983, Academic Preparation for College. What Students Need to Know and Be Able to Do , New York: College Entrance Examination Board, ERIC document ED232517.
• Commission on the Relation of School and College of the Progressive Education Association, 1943, Thirty Schools Tell Their Story , Volume V of Adventure in American Education , New York and London: Harper & Brothers.
• Council for Aid to Education, 2017, CLA+ Student Guide . Available at http://cae.org/images/uploads/pdf/CLA_Student_Guide_Institution.pdf ; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• Dalgleish, Adam, Patrick Girard, and Maree Davies, 2017, “Critical Thinking, Bias and Feminist Philosophy: Building a Better Framework through Collaboration”, Informal Logic , 37(4): 351–369. [ Dalgleish et al. available online ]
• Dewey, John, 1910, How We Think , Boston: D.C. Heath. [ Dewey 1910 available online ]
• –––, 1916, Democracy and Education: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Education , New York: Macmillan.
• –––, 1933, How We Think: A Restatement of the Relation of Reflective Thinking to the Educative Process , Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.
• –––, 1936, “The Theory of the Chicago Experiment”, Appendix II of Mayhew & Edwards 1936: 463–477.
• –––, 1938, Logic: The Theory of Inquiry , New York: Henry Holt and Company.
• Dominguez, Caroline (coord.), 2018a, A European Collection of the Critical Thinking Skills and Dispositions Needed in Different Professional Fields for the 21st Century , Vila Real, Portugal: UTAD. Available at http://bit.ly/CRITHINKEDUO1 ; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• ––– (coord.), 2018b, A European Review on Critical Thinking Educational Practices in Higher Education Institutions , Vila Real: UTAD. Available at http://bit.ly/CRITHINKEDUO2 ; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• ––– (coord.), 2018c, The CRITHINKEDU European Course on Critical Thinking Education for University Teachers: From Conception to Delivery , Vila Real: UTAD. Available at http:/bit.ly/CRITHINKEDU03; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• Dominguez Caroline and Rita Payan-Carreira (eds.), 2019, Promoting Critical Thinking in European Higher Education Institutions: Towards an Educational Protocol , Vila Real: UTAD. Available at http:/bit.ly/CRITHINKEDU04; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• Ennis, Robert H., 1958, “An Appraisal of the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal”, The Journal of Educational Research , 52(4): 155–158. doi:10.1080/00220671.1958.10882558
• –––, 1962, “A Concept of Critical Thinking: A Proposed Basis for Research on the Teaching and Evaluation of Critical Thinking Ability”, Harvard Educational Review , 32(1): 81–111.
• –––, 1981a, “A Conception of Deductive Logical Competence”, Teaching Philosophy , 4(3/4): 337–385. doi:10.5840/teachphil198143/429
• –––, 1981b, “Eight Fallacies in Bloom’s Taxonomy”, in C. J. B. Macmillan (ed.), Philosophy of Education 1980: Proceedings of the Thirty-seventh Annual Meeting of the Philosophy of Education Society , Bloomington, IL: Philosophy of Education Society, pp. 269–273.
• –––, 1984, “Problems in Testing Informal Logic, Critical Thinking, Reasoning Ability”, Informal Logic , 6(1): 3–9. [ Ennis 1984 available online ]
• –––, 1987, “A Taxonomy of Critical Thinking Dispositions and Abilities”, in Joan Boykoff Baron and Robert J. Sternberg (eds.), Teaching Thinking Skills: Theory and Practice , New York: W. H. Freeman, pp. 9–26.
• –––, 1989, “Critical Thinking and Subject Specificity: Clarification and Needed Research”, Educational Researcher , 18(3): 4–10. doi:10.3102/0013189X018003004
• –––, 1991, “Critical Thinking: A Streamlined Conception”, Teaching Philosophy , 14(1): 5–24. doi:10.5840/teachphil19911412
• –––, 1996, “Critical Thinking Dispositions: Their Nature and Assessability”, Informal Logic , 18(2–3): 165–182. [ Ennis 1996 available online ]
• –––, 1998, “Is Critical Thinking Culturally Biased?”, Teaching Philosophy , 21(1): 15–33. doi:10.5840/teachphil19982113
• –––, 2011, “Critical Thinking: Reflection and Perspective Part I”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking across the Disciplines , 26(1): 4–18. doi:10.5840/inquiryctnews20112613
• –––, 2013, “Critical Thinking across the Curriculum: The Wisdom CTAC Program”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking across the Disciplines , 28(2): 25–45. doi:10.5840/inquiryct20132828
• –––, 2016, “Definition: A Three-Dimensional Analysis with Bearing on Key Concepts”, in Patrick Bondy and Laura Benacquista (eds.), Argumentation, Objectivity, and Bias: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA), 18–21 May 2016 , Windsor, ON: OSSA, pp. 1–19. Available at http://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive/OSSA11/papersandcommentaries/105 ; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• –––, 2018, “Critical Thinking Across the Curriculum: A Vision”, Topoi , 37(1): 165–184. doi:10.1007/s11245-016-9401-4
• Ennis, Robert H., and Jason Millman, 1971, Manual for Cornell Critical Thinking Test, Level X, and Cornell Critical Thinking Test, Level Z , Urbana, IL: Critical Thinking Project, University of Illinois.
• Ennis, Robert H., Jason Millman, and Thomas Norbert Tomko, 1985, Cornell Critical Thinking Tests Level X & Level Z: Manual , Pacific Grove, CA: Midwest Publication, 3rd edition.
• –––, 2005, Cornell Critical Thinking Tests Level X & Level Z: Manual , Seaside, CA: Critical Thinking Company, 5th edition.
• Ennis, Robert H. and Eric Weir, 1985, The Ennis-Weir Critical Thinking Essay Test: Test, Manual, Criteria, Scoring Sheet: An Instrument for Teaching and Testing , Pacific Grove, CA: Midwest Publications.
• Facione, Peter A., 1990a, Critical Thinking: A Statement of Expert Consensus for Purposes of Educational Assessment and Instruction , Research Findings and Recommendations Prepared for the Committee on Pre-College Philosophy of the American Philosophical Association, ERIC Document ED315423.
• –––, 1990b, California Critical Thinking Skills Test, CCTST – Form A , Millbrae, CA: The California Academic Press.
• –––, 1990c, The California Critical Thinking Skills Test--College Level. Technical Report #3. Gender, Ethnicity, Major, CT Self-Esteem, and the CCTST , ERIC Document ED326584.
• –––, 1992, California Critical Thinking Skills Test: CCTST – Form B, Millbrae, CA: The California Academic Press.
• –––, 2000, “The Disposition Toward Critical Thinking: Its Character, Measurement, and Relationship to Critical Thinking Skill”, Informal Logic , 20(1): 61–84. [ Facione 2000 available online ]
• Facione, Peter A. and Noreen C. Facione, 1992, CCTDI: A Disposition Inventory , Millbrae, CA: The California Academic Press.
• Facione, Peter A., Noreen C. Facione, and Carol Ann F. Giancarlo, 2001, California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory: CCTDI: Inventory Manual , Millbrae, CA: The California Academic Press.
• Facione, Peter A., Carol A. Sánchez, and Noreen C. Facione, 1994, Are College Students Disposed to Think? , Millbrae, CA: The California Academic Press. ERIC Document ED368311.
• Fisher, Alec, and Michael Scriven, 1997, Critical Thinking: Its Definition and Assessment , Norwich: Centre for Research in Critical Thinking, University of East Anglia.
• Freire, Paulo, 1968 [1970], Pedagogia do Oprimido . Translated as Pedagogy of the Oppressed , Myra Bergman Ramos (trans.), New York: Continuum, 1970.
• Gigerenzer, Gerd, 2001, “The Adaptive Toolbox”, in Gerd Gigerenzer and Reinhard Selten (eds.), Bounded Rationality: The Adaptive Toolbox , Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 37–50.
• Glaser, Edward Maynard, 1941, An Experiment in the Development of Critical Thinking , New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University.
• Groarke, Leo A. and Christopher W. Tindale, 2012, Good Reasoning Matters! A Constructive Approach to Critical Thinking , Don Mills, ON: Oxford University Press, 5th edition.
• Halpern, Diane F., 1998, “Teaching Critical Thinking for Transfer Across Domains: Disposition, Skills, Structure Training, and Metacognitive Monitoring”, American Psychologist , 53(4): 449–455. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.53.4.449
• –––, 2016, Manual: Halpern Critical Thinking Assessment , Mödling, Austria: Schuhfried. Available at https://pdfcoffee.com/hcta-test-manual-pdf-free.html; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• Hamby, Benjamin, 2014, The Virtues of Critical Thinkers , Doctoral dissertation, Philosophy, McMaster University. [ Hamby 2014 available online ]
• –––, 2015, “Willingness to Inquire: The Cardinal Critical Thinking Virtue”, in Martin Davies and Ronald Barnett (eds.), The Palgrave Handbook of Critical Thinking in Higher Education , New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 77–87.
• Haran, Uriel, Ilana Ritov, and Barbara A. Mellers, 2013, “The Role of Actively Open-minded Thinking in Information Acquisition, Accuracy, and Calibration”, Judgment and Decision Making , 8(3): 188–201.
• Hatcher, Donald and Kevin Possin, 2021, “Commentary: Thinking Critically about Critical Thinking Assessment”, in Daniel Fasko, Jr. and Frank Fair (eds.), Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Theory, Development, Instruction, and Assessment , Leiden: Brill, pp. 298–322. doi: 10.1163/9789004444591_017
• Haynes, Ada, Elizabeth Lisic, Kevin Harris, Katie Leming, Kyle Shanks, and Barry Stein, 2015, “Using the Critical Thinking Assessment Test (CAT) as a Model for Designing Within-Course Assessments: Changing How Faculty Assess Student Learning”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines , 30(3): 38–48. doi:10.5840/inquiryct201530316
• Haynes, Ada and Barry Stein, 2021, “Observations from a Long-Term Effort to Assess and Improve Critical Thinking”, in Daniel Fasko, Jr. and Frank Fair (eds.), Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Theory, Development, Instruction, and Assessment , Leiden: Brill, pp. 231–254. doi: 10.1163/9789004444591_014
• Hiner, Amanda L. 2021. “Equipping Students for Success in College and Beyond: Placing Critical Thinking Instruction at the Heart of a General Education Program”, in Daniel Fasko, Jr. and Frank Fair (eds.), Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Theory, Development, Instruction, and Assessment , Leiden: Brill, pp. 188–208. doi: 10.1163/9789004444591_012
• Hitchcock, David, 2017, “Critical Thinking as an Educational Ideal”, in his On Reasoning and Argument: Essays in Informal Logic and on Critical Thinking , Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 477–497. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-53562-3_30
• –––, 2021, “Seven Philosophical Implications of Critical Thinking: Themes, Variations, Implications”, in Daniel Fasko, Jr. and Frank Fair (eds.), Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Theory, Development, Instruction, and Assessment , Leiden: Brill, pp. 9–30. doi: 10.1163/9789004444591_002
• hooks, bell, 1994, Teaching to Transgress: Education as the Practice of Freedom , New York and London: Routledge.
• –––, 2010, Teaching Critical Thinking: Practical Wisdom , New York and London: Routledge.
• Johnson, Ralph H., 1992, “The Problem of Defining Critical Thinking”, in Stephen P, Norris (ed.), The Generalizability of Critical Thinking , New York: Teachers College Press, pp. 38–53.
• Kahane, Howard, 1971, Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric: The Use of Reason in Everyday Life , Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
• Kahneman, Daniel, 2011, Thinking, Fast and Slow , New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
• Kahneman, Daniel, Olivier Sibony, & Cass R. Sunstein, 2021, Noise: A Flaw in Human Judgment , New York: Little, Brown Spark.
• Kenyon, Tim, and Guillaume Beaulac, 2014, “Critical Thinking Education and Debasing”, Informal Logic , 34(4): 341–363. [ Kenyon & Beaulac 2014 available online ]
• Krathwohl, David R., Benjamin S. Bloom, and Bertram B. Masia, 1964, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook II: Affective Domain , New York: David McKay.
• Kuhn, Deanna, 1991, The Skills of Argument , New York: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511571350
• –––, 2019, “Critical Thinking as Discourse”, Human Development, 62 (3): 146–164. doi:10.1159/000500171
• Lipman, Matthew, 1987, “Critical Thinking–What Can It Be?”, Analytic Teaching , 8(1): 5–12. [ Lipman 1987 available online ]
• –––, 2003, Thinking in Education , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2nd edition.
• Loftus, Elizabeth F., 2017, “Eavesdropping on Memory”, Annual Review of Psychology , 68: 1–18. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-010416-044138
• Makaiau, Amber Strong, 2021, “The Good Thinker’s Tool Kit: How to Engage Critical Thinking and Reasoning in Secondary Education”, in Daniel Fasko, Jr. and Frank Fair (eds.), Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Theory, Development, Instruction, and Assessment , Leiden: Brill, pp. 168–187. doi: 10.1163/9789004444591_011
• Martin, Jane Roland, 1992, “Critical Thinking for a Humane World”, in Stephen P. Norris (ed.), The Generalizability of Critical Thinking , New York: Teachers College Press, pp. 163–180.
• Mayhew, Katherine Camp, and Anna Camp Edwards, 1936, The Dewey School: The Laboratory School of the University of Chicago, 1896–1903 , New York: Appleton-Century. [ Mayhew & Edwards 1936 available online ]
• McPeck, John E., 1981, Critical Thinking and Education , New York: St. Martin’s Press.
• Moore, Brooke Noel and Richard Parker, 2020, Critical Thinking , New York: McGraw-Hill, 13th edition.
• Nickerson, Raymond S., 1998, “Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises”, Review of General Psychology , 2(2): 175–220. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175
• Nieto, Ana Maria, and Jorge Valenzuela, 2012, “A Study of the Internal Structure of Critical Thinking Dispositions”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking across the Disciplines , 27(1): 31–38. doi:10.5840/inquiryct20122713
• Norris, Stephen P., 1985, “Controlling for Background Beliefs When Developing Multiple-choice Critical Thinking Tests”, Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice , 7(3): 5–11. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3992.1988.tb00437.x
• Norris, Stephen P. and Robert H. Ennis, 1989, Evaluating Critical Thinking (The Practitioners’ Guide to Teaching Thinking Series), Pacific Grove, CA: Midwest Publications.
• Norris, Stephen P. and Ruth Elizabeth King, 1983, Test on Appraising Observations , St. John’s, NL: Institute for Educational Research and Development, Memorial University of Newfoundland.
• –––, 1984, The Design of a Critical Thinking Test on Appraising Observations , St. John’s, NL: Institute for Educational Research and Development, Memorial University of Newfoundland. ERIC Document ED260083.
• –––, 1985, Test on Appraising Observations: Manual , St. John’s, NL: Institute for Educational Research and Development, Memorial University of Newfoundland.
• –––, 1990a, Test on Appraising Observations , St. John’s, NL: Institute for Educational Research and Development, Memorial University of Newfoundland, 2nd edition.
• –––, 1990b, Test on Appraising Observations: Manual , St. John’s, NL: Institute for Educational Research and Development, Memorial University of Newfoundland, 2nd edition.
• OCR [Oxford, Cambridge and RSA Examinations], 2011, AS/A Level GCE: Critical Thinking – H052, H452 , Cambridge: OCR. Past papers available at https://pastpapers.co/ocr/?dir=A-Level/Critical-Thinking-H052-H452; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• Ontario Ministry of Education, 2013, The Ontario Curriculum Grades 9 to 12: Social Sciences and Humanities . Available at http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculum/secondary/ssciences9to122013.pdf ; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• Passmore, John Arthur, 1980, The Philosophy of Teaching , London: Duckworth.
• Paul, Richard W., 1981, “Teaching Critical Thinking in the ‘Strong’ Sense: A Focus on Self-Deception, World Views, and a Dialectical Mode of Analysis”, Informal Logic , 4(2): 2–7. [ Paul 1981 available online ]
• –––, 1984, “Critical Thinking: Fundamental to Education for a Free Society”, Educational Leadership , 42(1): 4–14.
• –––, 1985, “McPeck’s Mistakes”, Informal Logic , 7(1): 35–43. [ Paul 1985 available online ]
• Paul, Richard W. and Linda Elder, 2006, The Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking: Concepts and Tools , Dillon Beach, CA: Foundation for Critical Thinking, 4th edition.
• Payette, Patricia, and Edna Ross, 2016, “Making a Campus-Wide Commitment to Critical Thinking: Insights and Promising Practices Utilizing the Paul-Elder Approach at the University of Louisville”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines , 31(1): 98–110. doi:10.5840/inquiryct20163118
• Possin, Kevin, 2008, “A Field Guide to Critical-Thinking Assessment”, Teaching Philosophy , 31(3): 201–228. doi:10.5840/teachphil200831324
• –––, 2013a, “Some Problems with the Halpern Critical Thinking Assessment (HCTA) Test”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking across the Disciplines , 28(3): 4–12. doi:10.5840/inquiryct201328313
• –––, 2013b, “A Serious Flaw in the Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA) Test”, Informal Logic , 33(3): 390–405. [ Possin 2013b available online ]
• –––, 2013c, “A Fatal Flaw in the Collegiate Learning Assessment Test”, Assessment Update , 25 (1): 8–12.
• –––, 2014, “Critique of the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal Test: The More You Know, the Lower Your Score”, Informal Logic , 34(4): 393–416. [ Possin 2014 available online ]
• –––, 2020, “CAT Scan: A Critical Review of the Critical-Thinking Assessment Test”, Informal Logic , 40 (3): 489–508. [Available online at https://informallogic.ca/index.php/informal_logic/article/view/6243]
• Rawls, John, 1971, A Theory of Justice , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Rear, David, 2019, “One Size Fits All? The Limitations of Standardised Assessment in Critical Thinking”, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education , 44(5): 664–675. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2018.1526255
• Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, 1762, Émile , Amsterdam: Jean Néaulme.
• Scheffler, Israel, 1960, The Language of Education , Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
• Scriven, Michael, and Richard W. Paul, 1987, Defining Critical Thinking , Draft statement written for the National Council for Excellence in Critical Thinking Instruction. Available at http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/defining-critical-thinking/766 ; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• Sheffield, Clarence Burton Jr., 2018, “Promoting Critical Thinking in Higher Education: My Experiences as the Inaugural Eugene H. Fram Chair in Applied Critical Thinking at Rochester Institute of Technology”, Topoi , 37(1): 155–163. doi:10.1007/s11245-016-9392-1
• Siegel, Harvey, 1985, “McPeck, Informal Logic and the Nature of Critical Thinking”, in David Nyberg (ed.), Philosophy of Education 1985: Proceedings of the Forty-First Annual Meeting of the Philosophy of Education Society , Normal, IL: Philosophy of Education Society, pp. 61–72.
• –––, 1988, Educating Reason: Rationality, Critical Thinking, and Education , New York: Routledge.
• –––, 1999, “What (Good) Are Thinking Dispositions?”, Educational Theory , 49(2): 207–221. doi:10.1111/j.1741-5446.1999.00207.x
• Simon, Herbert A., 1956, “Rational Choice and the Structure of the Environment”, Psychological Review , 63(2): 129–138. doi: 10.1037/h0042769
• Simpson, Elizabeth, 1966–67, “The Classification of Educational Objectives: Psychomotor Domain”, Illinois Teacher of Home Economics , 10(4): 110–144, ERIC document ED0103613. [ Simpson 1966–67 available online ]
• Skolverket, 2018, Curriculum for the Compulsory School, Preschool Class and School-age Educare , Stockholm: Skolverket, revised 2018. Available at https://www.skolverket.se/download/18.31c292d516e7445866a218f/1576654682907/pdf3984.pdf; last accessed 2022 07 15.
• Smith, B. Othanel, 1953, “The Improvement of Critical Thinking”, Progressive Education , 30(5): 129–134.
• Smith, Eugene Randolph, Ralph Winfred Tyler, and the Evaluation Staff, 1942, Appraising and Recording Student Progress , Volume III of Adventure in American Education , New York and London: Harper & Brothers.
• Splitter, Laurance J., 1987, “Educational Reform through Philosophy for Children”, Thinking: The Journal of Philosophy for Children , 7(2): 32–39. doi:10.5840/thinking1987729
• Stanovich Keith E., and Paula J. Stanovich, 2010, “A Framework for Critical Thinking, Rational Thinking, and Intelligence”, in David D. Preiss and Robert J. Sternberg (eds), Innovations in Educational Psychology: Perspectives on Learning, Teaching and Human Development , New York: Springer Publishing, pp 195–237.
• Stanovich Keith E., Richard F. West, and Maggie E. Toplak, 2011, “Intelligence and Rationality”, in Robert J. Sternberg and Scott Barry Kaufman (eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 3rd edition, pp. 784–826. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511977244.040
• Tankersley, Karen, 2005, Literacy Strategies for Grades 4–12: Reinforcing the Threads of Reading , Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
• Thayer-Bacon, Barbara J., 1992, “Is Modern Critical Thinking Theory Sexist?”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines , 10(1): 3–7. doi:10.5840/inquiryctnews199210123
• –––, 1993, “Caring and Its Relationship to Critical Thinking”, Educational Theory , 43(3): 323–340. doi:10.1111/j.1741-5446.1993.00323.x
• –––, 1995a, “Constructive Thinking: Personal Voice”, Journal of Thought , 30(1): 55–70.
• –––, 1995b, “Doubting and Believing: Both are Important for Critical Thinking”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking across the Disciplines , 15(2): 59–66. doi:10.5840/inquiryctnews199515226
• –––, 2000, Transforming Critical Thinking: Thinking Constructively , New York: Teachers College Press.
• Toulmin, Stephen Edelston, 1958, The Uses of Argument , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Turri, John, Mark Alfano, and John Greco, 2017, “Virtue Epistemology”, in Edward N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2017 Edition). URL = < https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2017/entries/epistemology-virtue/ >
• Vincent-Lancrin, Stéphan, Carlos González-Sancho, Mathias Bouckaert, Federico de Luca, Meritxell Fernández-Barrerra, Gwénaël Jacotin, Joaquin Urgel, and Quentin Vidal, 2019, Fostering Students’ Creativity and Critical Thinking: What It Means in School. Educational Research and Innovation , Paris: OECD Publishing.
• Warren, Karen J. 1988. “Critical Thinking and Feminism”, Informal Logic , 10(1): 31–44. [ Warren 1988 available online ]
• Watson, Goodwin, and Edward M. Glaser, 1980a, Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal, Form A , San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
• –––, 1980b, Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal: Forms A and B; Manual , San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation,
• –––, 1994, Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal, Form B , San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
• Weinstein, Mark, 1990, “Towards a Research Agenda for Informal Logic and Critical Thinking”, Informal Logic , 12(3): 121–143. [ Weinstein 1990 available online ]
• –––, 2013, Logic, Truth and Inquiry , London: College Publications.
• Willingham, Daniel T., 2019, “How to Teach Critical Thinking”, Education: Future Frontiers , 1: 1–17. [Available online at https://prod65.education.nsw.gov.au/content/dam/main-education/teaching-and-learning/education-for-a-changing-world/media/documents/How-to-teach-critical-thinking-Willingham.pdf.]
• Zagzebski, Linda Trinkaus, 1996, Virtues of the Mind: An Inquiry into the Nature of Virtue and the Ethical Foundations of Knowledge , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139174763

How to cite this entry . Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society . Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO). Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers , with links to its database.

• Association for Informal Logic and Critical Thinking (AILACT)
• Critical Thinking Across the European Higher Education Curricula (CRITHINKEDU)
• Critical Thinking Definition, Instruction, and Assessment: A Rigorous Approach
• Critical Thinking Research (RAIL)
• Foundation for Critical Thinking
• Insight Assessment
• Partnership for 21st Century Learning (P21)
• The Critical Thinking Consortium
• The Nature of Critical Thinking: An Outline of Critical Thinking Dispositions and Abilities , by Robert H. Ennis

abilities | bias, implicit | children, philosophy for | civic education | decision-making capacity | Dewey, John | dispositions | education, philosophy of | epistemology: virtue | logic: informal

Copyright © 2022 by David Hitchcock < hitchckd @ mcmaster . ca >

• Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

• Info about mirror sites

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is copyright © 2024 by The Metaphysics Research Lab , Department of Philosophy, Stanford University

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

• Productivity
• Thoughtful learning

Mental models: 13 thinking tools to boost your problem-solving skills

Imagine you've gone out to dinner with friends. You’ve just sat down at your favorite table at your favorite restaurant, looking forward to the evening ahead.

The waiter brings over your menus and tells you about the specials. It sounds like one of the dishes is really good — you've always wanted to try it, and the way they've described it sounds amazing.

You're mulling it over in your mind while the others order, and then it's your turn — and you just ask for the same meal you always get.

Sound familiar?

Whether it’s your favorite meal or the perfectly worn-in pair of jeans in your closet, this tendency to fall back on what we know rather than risk something unknown is the result of a common thinking tool called a mental model.

Mental models, like the status quo bias in the scenario above, represent how we perceive something to operate in the world based on what we have learned in our lives. We all use them to help us understand complex situations and predict what will happen. If leveraged well, they can be powerful thinking tools.

This article will explore the concept of mental models as thinking tools and uncover 13 mental models you can add to your toolkit of thinking skills.

Mental models as thinking tools

Most of the time, we're not as thoughtful as we think. While many of us consider ourselves capable of critical thinking, researchers say we tend to make snap judgments without using our knowledge.

For example, let’s try an exercise. Take a look at this image:

Did you immediately react based on what you think is about to happen?

Although there isn’t a picture showing what takes place next, most of us made a guess using a tool we weren't even aware of — a mental model. Through our mental model, we could predict a possible outcome (which hopefully didn’t involve any scratches or falls).

Many of our snap judgments and reactions — whether about a photo we see or a problem we encounter — are shaped by the mental models we use to view the world. We begin to develop mental models as soon as we are born and continue to develop them throughout our lives, using them as a thinking tool to make sense of life, solve problems, and make decisions.

We all start out with different sets of mental models — after all, we all have different experiences that shape our early lives. As we gain experiences and knowledge, we add more models to our toolkit and learn to see things in new ways.

Sometimes our mental models work against us. If we limit our thinking to only a few mental models, we can suffer from critical thinking barriers . However, when we actively pursue thoughtful learning and collect many mental models, they can be extremely valuable tools for critical and creative thinking.

Munger's Latticework of Mental Models

Mental models as thinking tools were first made popular by Charlie Munger in his 1995 " The Psychology of Human Misjudgment " speech at Harvard University. Entrepreneurs and thinkers have since embraced mental models to achieve success.

According to Munger's Latticework of Mental Models theory, we can use various thinking tools to see problems from several points of view. Combining mental models increases original thinking, creativity, and problem-solving skills instead of relying on one frame of reference.

As Munger said , "All the wisdom of the world is not to be found in one little academic department ... 80 or 90 important models will carry about 90 percent of the freight in making you a worldly-wise person. And, of those, only a mere handful really carry very heavy freight."

This is why we need to keep learning — to expand our toolbox. The more mental models we have in our toolkit, the easier it is to find one that works for the situation.

A well-stocked toolbox is more effective at solving a problem than a single nail.

Focus like never before

Gather information, take notes, review, reflect, surface insights. All from one perfect, distraction-free interface.

13 valuable tools for your thinking skills toolkit

There are hundreds of mental models and thinking tools available, which can be overwhelming. Most of us are familiar with concepts like the Eisenhower Matrix and brainstorming. However, we can use many other mental models for creative and critical thinking. Here are 13 thinking tools to boost decision-making, problem-solving, and creative thinking skills.

1. First Principles

First principle thinking is a mental model that can be used for problem-solving by breaking things down to the most basic level. This thinking tool is based on the idea that all complex problems can be reduced to more specific, fundamental parts. Using first-principles thinking, you identify the underlying causes of a problem and then find the best solutions that address those root causes.

For instance, it would be impossible to pack up your entire house at once if you were moving. To pack efficiently and safely, you’d need to go room by room, tackling one room at a time.

2. Inversion

Inversion is a technique used to generate ideas of creative solutions to problems by imagining the opposite of them. Inversion is higher-order thinking that requires thinking about the solution you don't want. With inverted thinking, you consider how something might fail and then try to avoid those mistakes. This approach differs from "working backward," another way of doing things that encourages you to begin with the desired end solution in mind.

3. Occam's Razor

Occam's Razor is a mental model that can simplify complex problems and situations by determining which explanation is most likely. This thinking tool is based on the principle that the simplest answer is usually correct. When using Occam's Razor, you should look for the most obvious, straightforward reasoning that fits all facts.

4. Bloom's Taxonomy

Bloom's Taxonomy is a mental model used for categorizing the knowledge levels of learners. The cognitive, affective, and psychomotor learning domains are grouped into three hierarchical levels, with each level encompassing the previous one. In a hierarchical structure, areas of knowledge begin with simple skills and progress to higher-order thinking.

The six levels of Bloom's Taxonomy are:

• Knowledge: Recalling or recognizing facts and information
• Comprehension: Understanding the meaning of information
• Application: Using information in new ways
• Analysis: Breaking down information into smaller parts
• Synthesis: Putting pieces of information together to form a new whole
• Evaluation: Making judgments about the value of information

By applying the actions from each level of this tool, we can analyze situations from different angles and find more comprehensive solutions.

5. Incentives

Incentives are a model that can be used to encourage desired behavior. Based on a cause and effect concept, people will be more likely to act if they are given an incentive to do so. The incentives can be monetary, such as a bonus or commission, or non-monetary, such as recognition or privileges.

6. Fundamental Attribution Error

The fundamental attribution error is characterized by the tendency to focus too much on personal characteristics and not enough on circumstances when judging others. This mental model believes that people's actions reflect who they are without considering their point of view. This can lead to misunderstanding and conflict.

For example, it's easy to get angry and lash out at someone who cuts you off in traffic without considering that maybe they are rushing to the hospital for an emergency. Keeping this model in mind can help us avoid over-simplifying behavior.

7. Law of Diminishing Returns

The Law of Diminishing Returns provides a way to determine when it’s no longer efficient to continue investing in something. This thinking tool is based on the idea that there’s a point at which additional investment in something will result in diminishing returns.

The law of diminishing returns is often used in higher-level business decisions to determine when to stop investing in a project, but it’s also used in other forms of decision-making. Research has found that decision-makers tend to use a "matching" strategy in which they make their choice based on the relative value each option has.

8. Redundancy

The redundancy theory suggests that learners retain less new knowledge if the same information is presented in multiple ways or if it’s unnecessarily elaborate. Studies have shown that using several sources to relay information, such as text, visuals, and audio can create a lack of focus and less learning. Integrating the redundancy model can help teachers and leaders make learning more efficient.

9. Hanlon's Razor

Hanlon's Razor is a mental model that suggests most mistakes are not made maliciously. The purpose of this tool is to remind us not to assume the worst in the actions of others. Hanlon's Razor can help us see the situation from another's point of view and have more empathy, therefore avoiding making wrong assumptions.

For example, friends who aren't answering their mobile phones most likely aren't mad at you. Maybe they're just busy, or perhaps there are various other reasons to explain their delay.

10. Common Knowledge

We usually think of common knowledge as universal facts most people understand. However, the mental model of common knowledge is a little different. Used as a thinking tool, it focuses on pooling together the knowledge we don't share and taking into account the wisdom of others to help us make better decisions. Brainstorming, creating concept maps, and integrating feedback are useful tools we can use to share common knowledge.

11. Survivorship Bias

Survivorship bias refers to the tendency to focus on successful people, businesses, and strategies while overlooking failed ones.

For example, the idea that all 21st-century Hollywood stars got there through hard work may underestimate the amount of networking used to achieve fame. The idea dismisses the millions of other actors who worked just as hard but didn't have the same connections.

This thinking process can lead to decision-making errors because it causes people to overestimate their chances of success. However, when used to frame thinking, understanding the survivorship bias can help us consider other points of view and avoid making incorrect decisions.

12. The Ladder of Inference

The Ladder of Inference is a mental model that helps explain why we make judgments quickly and unconsciously. The ladder illustrates the rapid steps our minds go through to make decisions and take action in any given situation. The seven steps are:

• Observations: The data or information that we carry in through our senses
• Selected Data: The process of our brain choosing which information is important and which to ignore
• Meanings: Making interpretations and judgments based on our experiences, beliefs, and values
• Assumptions: The views or beliefs that we hold that help us interpret the facts
• Conclusions: The decision or opinion that we form based on our assumptions
• Beliefs: The convictions that we have about ourselves and the world around us
• Actions: The way we act or respond based on our thoughts

Using the Ladder of Inference as a thinking tool can help us avoid rash judgments based on assumptions and ensure sound thinking.

Boost your productivity with ABLE app

Highlight, annotate or take notes from anywhere, and it's easily linked to a selected topic in your Knowledge Base.

13. 80/20 Rule

The 80/20 Rule is a thinking tool that we can use to understand the relationship between inputs and outputs. This model is based on the idea that 80% of the results come from 20% of the effort. The 80/20 rule can be used to decide how to allocate resources.

Thinking tools are essential for a learner's toolkit

Every lifelong learner should have a toolbox of thinking tools. Mental models are helpful thinking tools that can enhance the creative and critical thinking processes. By having more tools at your disposal, you can approach any situation from various angles, increasing the probability of finding a successful solution.

Remember — building your thinking toolkit is an ongoing process. Keep learning, and you'll soon find that you're making better decisions consistently and solving problems more quickly.

I hope you have enjoyed reading this article. Feel free to share, recommend and connect 🙏

Connect with me on Twitter 👉   https://twitter.com/iamborisv

And follow Able's journey on Twitter: https://twitter.com/meet_able

And subscribe to our newsletter to read more valuable articles before it gets published on our blog.

Now we're building a Discord community of like-minded people, and we would be honoured and delighted to see you there.

Erin E. Rupp

Read more posts by this author

5 remedies for poor time management (and how to know if you need them)

Become a better critical thinker with these 7 critical thinking exercises.

What is abstract thinking? 10 activities to improve your abstract thinking skills

The Peak Performance Center

The pursuit of performance excellence, critical thinking.

Critical thinking refers to the process of actively analyzing, assessing, synthesizing, evaluating and reflecting on information gathered from observation, experience, or communication. It is thinking in a clear, logical, reasoned, and reflective manner to solve problems or make decisions. Basically, critical thinking is taking a hard look at something to understand what it really means.

Critical Thinkers

Critical thinkers do not simply accept all ideas, theories, and conclusions as facts. They have a mindset of questioning ideas and conclusions. They make reasoned judgments that are logical and well thought out by assessing the evidence that supports a specific theory or conclusion.

When presented with a new piece of new information, critical thinkers may ask questions such as;

“What information supports that?”

“How was this information obtained?”

“Who obtained the information?”

“How do we know the information is valid?”

“Why is it that way?”

“What makes it do that?”

“How do we know that?”

“Are there other possibilities?”

Combination of Analytical and Creative Thinking

Many people perceive critical thinking just as analytical thinking. However, critical thinking incorporates both analytical thinking and creative thinking. Critical thinking does involve breaking down information into parts and analyzing the parts in a logical, step-by-step manner. However, it also involves challenging consensus to formulate new creative ideas and generate innovative solutions. It is critical thinking that helps to evaluate and improve your creative ideas.

Elements of Critical Thinking

Critical thinking involves:

• Gathering relevant information
• Evaluating information
• Asking questions
• Assessing bias or unsubstantiated assumptions
• Making inferences from the information and filling in gaps
• Using abstract ideas to interpret information
• Formulating ideas
• Weighing opinions
• Reaching well-reasoned conclusions
• Considering alternative possibilities
• Testing conclusions
• Verifying if evidence/argument support the conclusions

Developing Critical Thinking Skills

Critical thinking is considered a higher order thinking skills, such as analysis, synthesis, deduction, inference, reason, and evaluation. In order to demonstrate critical thinking, you would need to develop skills in;

Interpreting : understanding the significance or meaning of information

Analyzing : breaking information down into its parts

Connecting : making connections between related items or pieces of information.

Integrating : connecting and combining information to better understand the relationship between the information.

Evaluating : judging the value, credibility, or strength of something

Reasoning : creating an argument through logical steps

Deducing : forming a logical opinion about something based on the information or evidence that is available

Inferring : figuring something out through reasoning based on assumptions and ideas

Generating : producing new information, ideas, products, or ways of viewing things.

Blooms Taxonomy

Bloom’s Taxonomy Revised

Mind Mapping

Chunking Information

Brainstorming

Copyright © 2024 | WordPress Theme by MH Themes

• Programs & Services
• Delphi Center

Ideas to Action (i2a)

• Paul-Elder Critical Thinking Framework

Critical thinking is that mode of thinking – about any subject, content, or problem — in which the thinker improves the quality of his or her thinking by skillfully taking charge of the structures inherent in thinking and imposing intellectual standards upon them. (Paul and Elder, 2001). The Paul-Elder framework has three components:

• The elements of thought (reasoning)
• The  intellectual standards that should be applied to the elements of reasoning
• The intellectual traits associated with a cultivated critical thinker that result from the consistent and disciplined application of the intellectual standards to the elements of thought

According to Paul and Elder (1997), there are two essential dimensions of thinking that students need to master in order to learn how to upgrade their thinking. They need to be able to identify the "parts" of their thinking, and they need to be able to assess their use of these parts of thinking.

Elements of Thought (reasoning)

The "parts" or elements of thinking are as follows:

• All reasoning has a purpose
• All reasoning is an attempt to figure something out, to settle some question, to solve some problem
• All reasoning is based on assumptions
• All reasoning is done from some point of view
• All reasoning is based on data, information and evidence
• All reasoning is expressed through, and shaped by, concepts and ideas
• All reasoning contains inferences or interpretations by which we draw conclusions and give meaning to data
• All reasoning leads somewhere or has implications and consequences

Universal Intellectual Standards

The intellectual standards that are to these elements are used to determine the quality of reasoning. Good critical thinking requires having a command of these standards. According to Paul and Elder (1997 ,2006), the ultimate goal is for the standards of reasoning to become infused in all thinking so as to become the guide to better and better reasoning. The intellectual standards include:

Intellectual Traits

Consistent application of the standards of thinking to the elements of thinking result in the development of intellectual traits of:

• Intellectual Humility
• Intellectual Courage
• Intellectual Empathy
• Intellectual Autonomy
• Intellectual Integrity
• Intellectual Perseverance
• Confidence in Reason
• Fair-mindedness

Characteristics of a Well-Cultivated Critical Thinker

Habitual utilization of the intellectual traits produce a well-cultivated critical thinker who is able to:

• Raise vital questions and problems, formulating them clearly and precisely
• Gather and assess relevant information, using abstract ideas to interpret it effectively
• Come to well-reasoned conclusions and solutions, testing them against relevant criteria and standards;
• Think open-mindedly within alternative systems of thought, recognizing and assessing, as need be, their assumptions, implications, and practical consequences; and
• Communicate effectively with others in figuring out solutions to complex problems

Paul, R. and Elder, L. (2010). The Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking Concepts and Tools. Dillon Beach: Foundation for Critical Thinking Press.

• SACS & QEP
• Planning and Implementation
• What is Critical Thinking?
• Why Focus on Critical Thinking?
• Culminating Undergraduate Experience
• Community Engagement
• Frequently Asked Questions
• What is i2a?

Copyright © 2012 - University of Louisville , Delphi Center

How it works

Transform your enterprise with the scalable mindsets, skills, & behavior change that drive performance.

Explore how BetterUp connects to your core business systems.

We pair AI with the latest in human-centered coaching to drive powerful, lasting learning and behavior change.

Build leaders that accelerate team performance and engagement.

Unlock performance potential at scale with AI-powered curated growth journeys.

Build resilience, well-being and agility to drive performance across your entire enterprise.

Transform your business, starting with your sales leaders.

Unlock business impact from the top with executive coaching.

Foster a culture of inclusion and belonging.

Accelerate the performance and potential of your agencies and employees.

See how innovative organizations use BetterUp to build a thriving workforce.

Discover how BetterUp measurably impacts key business outcomes for organizations like yours.

Daring Leadership Institute: a groundbreaking partnership that amplifies Brené Brown's empirically based, courage-building curriculum with BetterUp’s human transformation platform.

• What is coaching?

Learn how 1:1 coaching works, who its for, and if it's right for you.

Accelerate your personal and professional growth with the expert guidance of a BetterUp Coach.

Types of Coaching

Navigate career transitions, accelerate your professional growth, and achieve your career goals with expert coaching.

Enhance your communication skills for better personal and professional relationships, with tailored coaching that focuses on your needs.

Find balance, resilience, and well-being in all areas of your life with holistic coaching designed to empower you.

Discover your perfect match : Take our 5-minute assessment and let us pair you with one of our top Coaches tailored just for you.

Research, expert insights, and resources to develop courageous leaders within your organization.

Best practices, research, and tools to fuel individual and business growth.

View on-demand BetterUp events and learn about upcoming live discussions.

The latest insights and ideas for building a high-performing workplace.

• BetterUp Briefing

The online magazine that helps you understand tomorrow's workforce trends, today.

Innovative research featured in peer-reviewed journals, press, and more.

Founded in 2022 to deepen the understanding of the intersection of well-being, purpose, and performance

We're on a mission to help everyone live with clarity, purpose, and passion.

Join us and create impactful change.

Read the buzz about BetterUp.

Meet the leadership that's passionate about empowering your workforce.

For Business

For Individuals

Critical thinking is the one skillset you can't afford not to master

Jump to section

What is critical thinking?

5 characteristics of critical thinking, what are critical thinking skills, and why are they important, 6 key critical thinking skills, critical thinking example in real-life, 13 ways to start thinking critically.

Whether you’re aiming to improve your performance at work or simply trying to live a more fulfilling life , you’ll need a variety of hard and soft skills to move the needle. Some skills come naturally to some people, while others need to develop them actively.

One of these skills is critical thinking. But critical thinking itself is made up of several types of skills that contribute to solving problems more effectively.

Let’s explore the different types of critical thinking skills and how you can start improving them to level up your career.

Critical thinking is the ability to analyze facts objectively and form a judgment. It is a form of emotional intelligence .

Someone with critical thinking skills can think clearly and rationally when the situation demands it. It allows them to perform problem-solving and decision-making more effectively. 

As a result, you can look further than what you see at face value. You’re able to analyze what you see from a situation and gain some insight that goes further than what’s obvious to anyone from the outside.

Critical thinking also requires being able to understand the logical connection between two or more ideas or concepts. For example, a team working on a company’s pricing strategy needs to think critically about several concepts. 

Both the marketing and sales teams must work together. They need to analyze how to maximize sales. But they need to do so while also meeting profit goals. It’s important to understand the logical connection between sales strategy and marketing logistics. It’s the only way to get a good outcome.

Critical thinking is different from creative thinking . Creative thinking is the ability to generate brand new, innovative ideas. On the other hand, critical thinking requires you to carefully and logically analyze what information is given to you. Both are important to maximize results in any given situation.

What defines critical thinking? How does it affect the decision-making process? Here are five characteristics that make up the ability to think critically.

1. Dispositions

Critical thinkers have specific traits that allow them to think the way they do. Some people are predisposed to these traits, while others need to develop them actively.

Some of these dispositions include:

• Open-mindedness
• Respecting evidence and reasoning
• Being able to consider different perspectives and points of view: in other words, having cognitive flexibility
• Not being stuck in one position
• Clarity and precision

2. Argument

Good critical thinkers need to make solid arguments. 

An argument is making a statement aided by supporting evidence. It’s important to use well thought-out arguments when you’re in a constructive conflict . When analyzing a situation critically, you’ll need to make several arguments in your own mind to come to a judgment. 

3. Reasoning

In addition to arguments, critical thinking also requires inferring conclusions. From the facts and arguments presented to you, you need to use reasoning skills to come to a logical conclusion. 

This conclusion will determine the best course of action to take.

4. Criteria

Critical thinking is sometimes a matter of discerning truth from fiction. Not all facts presented to you may have the same level of truth. Certain conditions need to be met for something to be considered believable, and a critical thinker needs to be able to understand that.

5. Metacognition

Metacognition is the ability to think about your own thinking. Critical thinkers should be able to analyze their thoughts so that they can judge whether or not they’ve thought everything through. This helps them come up with better hypotheses.

The critical thinking skills definition is: soft skills that help you in the critical thinking process. Developing these skills can improve your ability to think critically.

Critical thinking skills are considered one of many durable skills in the workplace . Many of these are soft skills that are also useful in other situations.

According to research by America Succeeds, critical thinking is in the top five most requested durable skills in job postings. Those top five durable skills get requested 2.6x more often than the top five hard skills. This goes to show that soft skills like critical thinking skills are in demand in the workplace.

Critical thinking skills are important for several reasons. These include helping you work independently and solve problems . Not all positions require ongoing critical thinking. But, those skills definitely matter to anyone who wants to uplevel their career. And even the most easygoing positions require at least some level of critical thinking skills.

For example, working as an accountant can be straightforward in most cases. But it may require critical thinking skills. For instance, what if certain expenses aren’t easily distributed in simple categories? Without critical thinking skills, an accountant will struggle to work independently and solve problems on their own.

Critical thinking abilities also matter in everyday life. Having a foundation for critical thinking can help you analyze several possible solutions for problems that pop up in the home. It can also help you:

• Analyze different viewpoints
• Come up with the best solution for complex problems
• Become a better learner

The key critical thinking skills are identifying biases, inference, research, identification, curiosity, and judging relevance.

Let’s explore these six critical thinking skills you should learn and why they’re so important to the critical thinking process.

1. Identifying biases

This critical thinking skill is necessary for metacognition, which is the fifth characteristic of critical thinking. It involves knowing when others have a cognitive bias and when you have one yourself.

Biases can influence how someone understands the facts presented to them. But when you’re aware of those biases, you can question yourself on those biases and consider other points of view.

Identifying biases is especially important for people who make hiring decisions. That’s because biases against groups of minorities can lead to inequalities in the workplace when not identified. 

For example, imagine a hiring manager comparing two resumes. Their gut feeling could guide them to discount one of the resumes due to a bias against the opposite gender. But let’s say this hiring manager realizes they have this bias. They can then question themselves on whether or not this bias is influencing their judgment. 

2. Inference

Inference is the ability to draw conclusions based on the information you have. Without inference, it can be difficult to take action once you’ve analyzed the facts presented to you. Processing information is key to coming up with a reasoned judgment.

For example, let’s go back to the accountant struggling to assign the correct category to a business expense. They can analyze other similar situations and infer the most logical category based on that information.

3. Research

Before you analyze facts and infer a conclusion, you need to find out what those facts are. Researching skills allow you to discover facts and figures to make an argument.

Not all situations will have the required information available to you. Researching skills are necessary to dig into a situation and gather the information you need to think critically.

Some situations don’t require further research. For example, a first responder who arrives on the scene of an automobile accident won’t perform further research. They’ll have to analyze what they see in front of them and decide which injuries are the most urgent to care for. 

On the other hand, someone performing a market analysis will need to research competitors and gather information before coming up with an opinion. 

4. Identification

Identification is different from inference and research. It involves being able to identify a problem but also what’s influencing that problem.

In short, identification is necessary for someone to realize that they need to think critically about something. Without proper identification skills, it will be difficult for someone to know when it’s time to analyze a situation. 

For example, let’s say you’re entering numbers in a spreadsheet. The numbers aren’t coming out as they usually do. Without identification skills, you could easily keep going without realizing there’s an issue. But when you identify what’s going on, you can see that something is broken in the spreadsheet’s formula.

Only once you identify the fact that the formula is broken can you start analyzing what’s going on to solve the issue.

5. Curiosity

Don’t be afraid to question everything and explore what you’re curious about. That’s because intellectual curiosity is a valuable skill, especially when it comes to critical thinking.

One way to practice curiosity is to adopt a beginner’s mindset . When you come into every situation with the mindset of a beginner, you’re able to keep an open mind. You’ll be able to perceive things you may not have noticed when keeping your mind closed.

6. Judging relevance

Not all information is equally pertinent. In order to make a critical judgment, it’s important to be able to judge the relevance of the information you have.

Take, for instance, basic online researching skills. You have access to a plethora of information on virtually every topic imaginable. But performing online research requires you to constantly judge the relevance of what you see. 

Without judging relevance, you’d spend too much time on details that don’t matter as much for the final desired outcome. But when you’re able to discern what’s most pertinent, you can give that information more weight as you’re thinking critically.

So what would critical thinking skills look like in a real-life situation?

Let’s imagine you’re working in software quality assurance (QA) as a team lead. But every time your team needs to enter bug regression, everyone gets bottlenecked because you must manually populate the spreadsheet used for the regression. While you do this task, your team cannot be productive without you.

This process happens once a week and easily wastes half an hour for each team member.

First, you must identify what’s going on. The team gets bottlenecked because only you, as the team lead, can access the information required to fill in the regression spreadsheet.

Next, you can research information. You can inquire to higher-ups about the reason why only you have access to this information. You can also speak to other teams about what potential solutions they’ve come up with to solve this problem.

Once you’ve done your research, it’s time to analyze the information and judge relevance. Some teams have solutions that don’t apply to you, so that information isn’t relevant anymore. 

Figure out if there are any personal biases before you analyze your information. 

For example, it’s possible that you don’t get along with one of the other team leads. As a result, you could discount the information they’ve given you. But by identifying this bias, you can look past your personal opinion of this person and see how valuable their solution is.

Based on what you’ve analyzed, it’s time to brainstorm and come up with a solution. You realize that creating a simple, automated script will save your team’s time. And it will do so without consuming too many resources from the engineering department.

Next, present your solution to your manager. Explain how you came to this conclusion. 

Now, let’s say your spreadsheet automation solution is approved. It’s important to go back and analyze what happens after implementing the solution. But only do this once the spreadsheet has been in place for long enough to gather plenty of information. 

Here’s an example. You could realize that the solution did solve the bottleneck. But, the script also slows down the spreadsheet and makes it difficult to work with. This would require you to go back to the drawing board and start the process all over again.

Want to start improving your own critical thinking skill sets? Here’s how you can improve critical thinking skills using 13 techniques:

• Play games that require critical thinking skills
• Ask more questions, even basic ones
• Question your assumptions
• Develop your technical skills so that you can identify problems more easily
• Find ways to solve more problems (at work and at home)
• Become aware of your mental processes, like the availability heuristic
• Think for yourself: don’t adopt other people’s opinions without questioning them first
• Seek out diversity of thought
• Start developing foresight
• Try active listening
• Weigh the consequences of different actions before you act
• Seek a mentor who can help you develop these skills
• Get professional coaching

How to improve your critical thinking skills 

Critical thinking skills aren’t always easy to develop. But it’s much easier to start thinking critically when you have someone to work with. Try a custom BetterUp demo to see how a coach can help you develop your critical thinking skills today.

Understand Yourself Better:

Big 5 Personality Test

Maggie Wooll, MBA

Maggie Wooll is a researcher, author, and speaker focused on the evolving future of work. Formerly the lead researcher at the Deloitte Center for the Edge, she holds a Bachelor of Science in Education from Princeton University and an MBA from the University of Virginia Darden School of Business. Maggie is passionate about creating better work and greater opportunities for all.

How to develop critical thinking skills

What’s convergent thinking how to be a better problem-solver, the most critical skills for leaders are fundamentally human, why self-management is key to success and how to improve yours, the new skill set needed to succeed in the hybrid workplace, how intrapersonal skills shape teams, plus 5 ways to build them, how to be optimistic, building strength for tomorrow: new president of betterup care™ on extending proactive mental health across the enterprise, what is social well-being definition, types, and how to achieve it, what is lateral thinking 7 techniques to encourage creative ideas, 9 cognitive skill examples and how to improve them, 8 brainstorming techniques to harness the power of teamwork, how to pitch ideas: 8 tips to captivate any audience, what are analytical skills examples and how to level up, how divergent thinking can drive your creativity, how the minto pyramid principle can enhance your communication skills, stay connected with betterup, get our newsletter, event invites, plus product insights and research..

3100 E 5th Street, Suite 350 Austin, TX 78702

• Platform Overview
• Integrations
• Powered by AI
• BetterUp Lead™
• BetterUp Manage™
• BetterUp Care®
• Sales Performance
• Diversity & Inclusion
• Case Studies
• Why BetterUp?
• About Coaching
• Find your Coach
• Career Coaching
• Communication Coaching
• Personal Coaching
• News and Press
• Leadership Team
• Become a BetterUp Coach
• BetterUp Labs
• Center for Purpose & Performance
• Leadership Training
• Business Coaching
• Contact Support
• Contact Sales
• Privacy Policy
• Acceptable Use Policy
• Trust & Security
• Cookie Preferences

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Working with sources
• What Is Critical Thinking? | Definition & Examples

What Is Critical Thinking? | Definition & Examples

Published on May 30, 2022 by Eoghan Ryan . Revised on May 31, 2023.

Critical thinking is the ability to effectively analyze information and form a judgment .

To think critically, you must be aware of your own biases and assumptions when encountering information, and apply consistent standards when evaluating sources .

Critical thinking skills help you to:

• Identify credible sources
• Evaluate and respond to arguments
• Assess alternative viewpoints
• Test hypotheses against relevant criteria

Table of contents

Why is critical thinking important, critical thinking examples, how to think critically, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about critical thinking.

Critical thinking is important for making judgments about sources of information and forming your own arguments. It emphasizes a rational, objective, and self-aware approach that can help you to identify credible sources and strengthen your conclusions.

Critical thinking is important in all disciplines and throughout all stages of the research process . The types of evidence used in the sciences and in the humanities may differ, but critical thinking skills are relevant to both.

In academic writing , critical thinking can help you to determine whether a source:

• Is free from research bias
• Provides evidence to support its research findings
• Considers alternative viewpoints

Outside of academia, critical thinking goes hand in hand with information literacy to help you form opinions rationally and engage independently and critically with popular media.

Scribbr Citation Checker New

The AI-powered Citation Checker helps you avoid common mistakes such as:

• Missing commas and periods
• Incorrect usage of “et al.”
• Ampersands (&) in narrative citations
• Missing reference entries

Critical thinking can help you to identify reliable sources of information that you can cite in your research paper . It can also guide your own research methods and inform your own arguments.

Outside of academia, critical thinking can help you to be aware of both your own and others’ biases and assumptions.

Academic examples

However, when you compare the findings of the study with other current research, you determine that the results seem improbable. You analyze the paper again, consulting the sources it cites.

You notice that the research was funded by the pharmaceutical company that created the treatment. Because of this, you view its results skeptically and determine that more independent research is necessary to confirm or refute them. Example: Poor critical thinking in an academic context You’re researching a paper on the impact wireless technology has had on developing countries that previously did not have large-scale communications infrastructure. You read an article that seems to confirm your hypothesis: the impact is mainly positive. Rather than evaluating the research methodology, you accept the findings uncritically.

Nonacademic examples

However, you decide to compare this review article with consumer reviews on a different site. You find that these reviews are not as positive. Some customers have had problems installing the alarm, and some have noted that it activates for no apparent reason.

You revisit the original review article. You notice that the words “sponsored content” appear in small print under the article title. Based on this, you conclude that the review is advertising and is therefore not an unbiased source. Example: Poor critical thinking in a nonacademic context You support a candidate in an upcoming election. You visit an online news site affiliated with their political party and read an article that criticizes their opponent. The article claims that the opponent is inexperienced in politics. You accept this without evidence, because it fits your preconceptions about the opponent.

There is no single way to think critically. How you engage with information will depend on the type of source you’re using and the information you need.

However, you can engage with sources in a systematic and critical way by asking certain questions when you encounter information. Like the CRAAP test , these questions focus on the currency , relevance , authority , accuracy , and purpose of a source of information.

When encountering information, ask:

• Who is the author? Are they an expert in their field?
• What do they say? Is their argument clear? Can you summarize it?
• When did they say this? Is the source current?
• Where is the information published? Is it an academic article? Is it peer-reviewed ?
• Why did the author publish it? What is their motivation?
• How do they make their argument? Is it backed up by evidence? Does it rely on opinion, speculation, or appeals to emotion ? Do they address alternative arguments?

Critical thinking also involves being aware of your own biases, not only those of others. When you make an argument or draw your own conclusions, you can ask similar questions about your own writing:

• Am I only considering evidence that supports my preconceptions?
• Is my argument expressed clearly and backed up with credible sources?
• Would I be convinced by this argument coming from someone else?

If you want to know more about ChatGPT, AI tools , citation , and plagiarism , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

• ChatGPT vs human editor
• ChatGPT citations
• Is ChatGPT trustworthy?
• Using ChatGPT for your studies
• What is ChatGPT?
• Chicago style
• Paraphrasing

 Plagiarism

• Types of plagiarism
• Self-plagiarism
• Avoiding plagiarism
• Academic integrity
• Consequences of plagiarism
• Common knowledge

Don't submit your assignments before you do this

The academic proofreading tool has been trained on 1000s of academic texts. Making it the most accurate and reliable proofreading tool for students. Free citation check included.

Try for free

Critical thinking refers to the ability to evaluate information and to be aware of biases or assumptions, including your own.

Like information literacy , it involves evaluating arguments, identifying and solving problems in an objective and systematic way, and clearly communicating your ideas.

Critical thinking skills include the ability to:

You can assess information and arguments critically by asking certain questions about the source. You can use the CRAAP test , focusing on the currency , relevance , authority , accuracy , and purpose of a source of information.

Ask questions such as:

• Who is the author? Are they an expert?
• How do they make their argument? Is it backed up by evidence?

A credible source should pass the CRAAP test  and follow these guidelines:

• The information should be up to date and current.
• The author and publication should be a trusted authority on the subject you are researching.
• The sources the author cited should be easy to find, clear, and unbiased.
• For a web source, the URL and layout should signify that it is trustworthy.

Information literacy refers to a broad range of skills, including the ability to find, evaluate, and use sources of information effectively.

Being information literate means that you:

• Know how to find credible sources
• Use relevant sources to inform your research
• Understand what constitutes plagiarism
• Know how to cite your sources correctly

Confirmation bias is the tendency to search, interpret, and recall information in a way that aligns with our pre-existing values, opinions, or beliefs. It refers to the ability to recollect information best when it amplifies what we already believe. Relatedly, we tend to forget information that contradicts our opinions.

Although selective recall is a component of confirmation bias, it should not be confused with recall bias.

On the other hand, recall bias refers to the differences in the ability between study participants to recall past events when self-reporting is used. This difference in accuracy or completeness of recollection is not related to beliefs or opinions. Rather, recall bias relates to other factors, such as the length of the recall period, age, and the characteristics of the disease under investigation.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

Ryan, E. (2023, May 31). What Is Critical Thinking? | Definition & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved August 12, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/working-with-sources/critical-thinking/

Is this article helpful?

Eoghan Ryan

Other students also liked, student guide: information literacy | meaning & examples, what are credible sources & how to spot them | examples, applying the craap test & evaluating sources, get unlimited documents corrected.

✔ Free APA citation check included ✔ Unlimited document corrections ✔ Specialized in correcting academic texts

The Pedagogy of Confidence Homepage

Critical Thinking Tools

The four pillars of critical thinking are models of practical methods that are the core of developing critical thinking skills. Download Critical Thinking Guide

Collaborative Communities are three supporting methods of collaborative tools for individual and collaborative success. These include:   community building exercises and models, collaborative learning methods and peer-to-peer coaching.

Questioning Methods are used to engage students in curiosity, exploration, discovery and discussions. This includes effective methods for developing questioning skills leading to inquiry based shared inquiry.

Open Source Visual Mapping is for organizing and understanding thinking individually and collaboratively. The maps support recognizing patterns of thinking along with the frame of reference to understand different perspectives.

Thinking Environments is an awareness, understanding and a process focused on the design, interface and impact of the environment including a person’s use of space, materials, and objects.

Collaborative Communities

Community Building Exercises Building community exercises involves developing the whole community together   for understanding one another, learning how to collaborate collectively, developing listening for learning, and other methods for the whole school community collectively learning with one another.

Peer to Peer Coaching Peer to Peer Coaching involves teachers creating their own professional coaching community. It includes regularly observing each other throughout the whole school with a focused protocol to support seeing each other’s professional skills. The goal is learning professionally from one another in quest of the finest craft and pedagogy for student outcomes.

Collaborative Learning Methods Collaborative learning builds relationships among students (and teachers with teachers) that requires positive inter-dependence (a sense of sink or swim together), individual accountability (each of us has to contribute and learn), interpersonal skills (communication, trust, leadership, decision making, and conflict resolution), face-to-face promotive interaction, and processing (reflecting on how well the team is functioning and how to function even better).

Questioning Methods

We ask questions regularly. There are several types of questions:

• evaluative  
• interpretive

Statements and Questions Statements are ‘answers’ that signal a stop in thinking with a final answer. Questions are a driving force in the process of thinking. One asks questions to stimulate thinking. The art of questions like any skill takes practice of the finer points to achieve mastery. We will focus on bringing questioning into the classrooms critical thinking by scaffolding supportive strategies:

Powerful Questions

Collaborative Questions

Socratic Method for Shared Dialogue with Classroom Discussions

Visual Mapping

• Introducing all eight Thinking Maps to learn the tool using pictures, words and other representations for all grade levels.
• Introducing the Frame of Reference for Thinking Maps and other visual tools.
• Learning hand symbols for each of the Thinking Maps.
• Students choosing the Thinking Map that best represents how they are organizing their thinking (student centered ownership).
• Integrating Thinking Maps across all subjects and content.

Critical Thinking Environments

• Beliefs with a classroom of equity that focuses on mindfulness of belonging for all students and adults in a learning environment.
• People including proximity of the teacher with students and how we choreograph the flow.  
• Objects in the classroom including furniture, lighting and all objects that influence in regards to their design and use.
• Materials used including choices and use of natural and recycled things.

The teacher’s decisions with intentionality impact the classroom and school’s environment. They are crucial to the quality outcomes of the children and youth’s learning experiences and how they model with the children, and become a model to how students learn.

Download Critical Thinking Guide

Work Life is Atlassian’s flagship publication dedicated to unleashing the potential of every team through real-life advice, inspiring stories, and thoughtful perspectives from leaders around the world.

Contributing Writer

Work Futurist

Senior Quantitative Researcher, People Insights

Principal Writer

How to build critical thinking skills for better decision-making

It’s simple in theory, but tougher in practice – here are five tips to get you started.

Get stories like this in your inbox

Have you heard the riddle about two coins that equal thirty cents, but one of them is not a nickel? What about the one where a surgeon says they can’t operate on their own son?

Those brain teasers tap into your critical thinking skills. But your ability to think critically isn’t just helpful for solving those random puzzles – it plays a big role in your career. 

An impressive 81% of employers say critical thinking carries a lot of weight when they’re evaluating job candidates. It ranks as the top competency companies consider when hiring recent graduates (even ahead of communication ). Plus, once you’re hired, several studies show that critical thinking skills are highly correlated with better job performance.

So what exactly are critical thinking skills? And even more importantly, how do you build and improve them? 

What is critical thinking?

Critical thinking is the ability to evaluate facts and information, remain objective, and make a sound decision about how to move forward.

Does that sound like how you approach every decision or problem? Not so fast. Critical thinking seems simple in theory but is much tougher in practice, which helps explain why 65% of employers say their organization has a need for more critical thinking. 

In reality, critical thinking doesn’t come naturally to a lot of us. In order to do it well, you need to:

• Remain open-minded and inquisitive, rather than relying on assumptions or jumping to conclusions
• Ask questions and dig deep, rather than accepting information at face value
• Keep your own biases and perceptions in check to stay as objective as possible
• Rely on your emotional intelligence to fill in the blanks and gain a more well-rounded understanding of a situation

So, critical thinking isn’t just being intelligent or analytical. In many ways, it requires you to step outside of yourself, let go of your own preconceived notions, and approach a problem or situation with curiosity and fairness.

It’s a challenge, but it’s well worth it. Critical thinking skills will help you connect ideas, make reasonable decisions, and solve complex problems.

7 critical thinking skills to help you dig deeper

Critical thinking is often labeled as a skill itself (you’ll see it bulleted as a desired trait in a variety of job descriptions). But it’s better to think of critical thinking less as a distinct skill and more as a collection or category of skills. 

To think critically, you’ll need to tap into a bunch of your other soft skills. Here are seven of the most important. 

Open-mindedness

It’s important to kick off the critical thinking process with the idea that anything is possible. The more you’re able to set aside your own suspicions, beliefs, and agenda, the better prepared you are to approach the situation with the level of inquisitiveness you need. 

That means not closing yourself off to any possibilities and allowing yourself the space to pull on every thread – yes, even the ones that seem totally implausible.

As Christopher Dwyer, Ph.D. writes in a piece for Psychology Today , “Even if an idea appears foolish, sometimes its consideration can lead to an intelligent, critically considered conclusion.” He goes on to compare the critical thinking process to brainstorming . Sometimes the “bad” ideas are what lay the foundation for the good ones. 

Open-mindedness is challenging because it requires more effort and mental bandwidth than sticking with your own perceptions. Approaching problems or situations with true impartiality often means:

• Practicing self-regulation : Giving yourself a pause between when you feel something and when you actually react or take action.
• Challenging your own biases: Acknowledging your biases and seeking feedback are two powerful ways to get a broader understanding. 

Critical thinking example

In a team meeting, your boss mentioned that your company newsletter signups have been decreasing and she wants to figure out why.

At first, you feel offended and defensive – it feels like she’s blaming you for the dip in subscribers. You recognize and rationalize that emotion before thinking about potential causes. You have a hunch about what’s happening, but you will explore all possibilities and contributions from your team members.

Observation

Observation is, of course, your ability to notice and process the details all around you (even the subtle or seemingly inconsequential ones). Critical thinking demands that you’re flexible and willing to go beyond surface-level information, and solid observation skills help you do that.

Your observations help you pick up on clues from a variety of sources and experiences, all of which help you draw a final conclusion. After all, sometimes it’s the most minuscule realization that leads you to the strongest conclusion.

Over the next week or so, you keep a close eye on your company’s website and newsletter analytics to see if numbers are in fact declining or if your boss’s concerns were just a fluke. 

Critical thinking hinges on objectivity. And, to be objective, you need to base your judgments on the facts – which you collect through research. You’ll lean on your research skills to gather as much information as possible that’s relevant to your problem or situation. 

Keep in mind that this isn’t just about the quantity of information – quality matters too. You want to find data and details from a variety of trusted sources to drill past the surface and build a deeper understanding of what’s happening. 

You dig into your email and website analytics to identify trends in bounce rates, time on page, conversions, and more. You also review recent newsletters and email promotions to understand what customers have received, look through current customer feedback, and connect with your customer support team to learn what they’re hearing in their conversations with customers.

The critical thinking process is sort of like a treasure hunt – you’ll find some nuggets that are fundamental for your final conclusion and some that might be interesting but aren’t pertinent to the problem at hand.

That’s why you need analytical skills. They’re what help you separate the wheat from the chaff, prioritize information, identify trends or themes, and draw conclusions based on the most relevant and influential facts. 

It’s easy to confuse analytical thinking with critical thinking itself, and it’s true there is a lot of overlap between the two. But analytical thinking is just a piece of critical thinking. It focuses strictly on the facts and data, while critical thinking incorporates other factors like emotions, opinions, and experiences. 

As you analyze your research, you notice that one specific webpage has contributed to a significant decline in newsletter signups. While all of the other sources have stayed fairly steady with regard to conversions, that one has sharply decreased.

You decide to move on from your other hypotheses about newsletter quality and dig deeper into the analytics. 

One of the traps of critical thinking is that it’s easy to feel like you’re never done. There’s always more information you could collect and more rabbit holes you could fall down.

But at some point, you need to accept that you’ve done your due diligence and make a decision about how to move forward. That’s where inference comes in. It’s your ability to look at the evidence and facts available to you and draw an informed conclusion based on those. 

When you’re so focused on staying objective and pursuing all possibilities, inference can feel like the antithesis of critical thinking. But ultimately, it’s your inference skills that allow you to move out of the thinking process and onto the action steps. 

You dig deeper into the analytics for the page that hasn’t been converting and notice that the sharp drop-off happened around the same time you switched email providers.

After looking more into the backend, you realize that the signup form on that page isn’t correctly connected to your newsletter platform. It seems like anybody who has signed up on that page hasn’t been fed to your email list. 

Communication

3 ways to improve your communication skills at work

If and when you identify a solution or answer, you can’t keep it close to the vest. You’ll need to use your communication skills to share your findings with the relevant stakeholders – like your boss, team members, or anybody who needs to be involved in the next steps.

Your analysis skills will come in handy here too, as they’ll help you determine what information other people need to know so you can avoid bogging them down with unnecessary details. 

In your next team meeting, you pull up the analytics and show your team the sharp drop-off as well as the missing connection between that page and your email platform. You ask the web team to reinstall and double-check that connection and you also ask a member of the marketing team to draft an apology email to the subscribers who were missed. 

Problem-solving

Critical thinking and problem-solving are two more terms that are frequently confused. After all, when you think critically, you’re often doing so with the objective of solving a problem.

The best way to understand how problem-solving and critical thinking differ is to think of problem-solving as much more narrow. You’re focused on finding a solution.

In contrast, you can use critical thinking for a variety of use cases beyond solving a problem – like answering questions or identifying opportunities for improvement. Even so, within the critical thinking process, you’ll flex your problem-solving skills when it comes time to take action. 

Once the fix is implemented, you monitor the analytics to see if subscribers continue to increase. If not (or if they increase at a slower rate than you anticipated), you’ll roll out some other tests like changing the CTA language or the placement of the subscribe form on the page.

5 ways to improve your critical thinking skills

Beyond the buzzwords: Why interpersonal skills matter at work

Think critically about critical thinking and you’ll quickly realize that it’s not as instinctive as you’d like it to be. Fortunately, your critical thinking skills are learned competencies and not inherent gifts – and that means you can improve them. Here’s how:

• Practice active listening: Active listening helps you process and understand what other people share. That’s crucial as you aim to be open-minded and inquisitive.
• Ask open-ended questions: If your critical thinking process involves collecting feedback and opinions from others, ask open-ended questions (meaning, questions that can’t be answered with “yes” or “no”). Doing so will give you more valuable information and also prevent your own biases from influencing people’s input.
• Scrutinize your sources: Figuring out what to trust and prioritize is crucial for critical thinking. Boosting your media literacy and asking more questions will help you be more discerning about what to factor in. It’s hard to strike a balance between skepticism and open-mindedness, but approaching information with questions (rather than unquestioning trust) will help you draw better conclusions. 
• Play a game: Remember those riddles we mentioned at the beginning? As trivial as they might seem, games and exercises like those can help you boost your critical thinking skills. There are plenty of critical thinking exercises you can do individually or as a team . 
• Give yourself time: Research shows that rushed decisions are often regrettable ones. That’s likely because critical thinking takes time – you can’t do it under the wire. So, for big decisions or hairy problems, give yourself enough time and breathing room to work through the process. It’s hard enough to think critically without a countdown ticking in your brain. 

Critical thinking really is critical

The ability to think critically is important, but it doesn’t come naturally to most of us. It’s just easier to stick with biases, assumptions, and surface-level information. 

But that route often leads you to rash judgments, shaky conclusions, and disappointing decisions. So here’s a conclusion we can draw without any more noodling: Even if it is more demanding on your mental resources, critical thinking is well worth the effort.

Advice, stories, and expertise about work life today.

5 Tech Tools to Encourage Critical Thinking

Critical thinking is an important aspect of learning. Understanding something is more than repeating facts, it’s being able to apply what you know in different forms . The practice of getting students to do this requires a shift from learning by receiving information to turning that information into something else , like a diagram or a storybook.

These five simple tools allow you to inspire critical thinking in your students. Encourage them to take the information you’re giving them, and show what they know with mind maps, puzzles and more!

Discovery Education: Puzzlemaker

Students can use Discovery’s Puzzlemaker suite of tools to make customized word searches, letter tile puzzles, hidden message games and more. Use this as a v ocabulary activity station . Students pair up and create a puzzle for their teammate to solve using the words they’re learning that week.

This gives both students a chance to work with vocabulary in a new and fun way that requires extra thinking and problem solving.

MindMeister

Mind mapping is a valuable tool to facilitate critical thinking, and technology has made it easier than ever to bring this into your classroom.

Use MindMeister, a simple and easy to implement mind mapping tool, to encourage students to think about a topic, lesson, problem or subject from every angle . This activity helps them look at the whole picture with a critical eye, rather than just studying the facts that are being taught in the curriculum.

Check out this compilation of inspiring educational mind maps , which cover topics like grammar, geography and reading comprehension.

Whooo’s Reading  

Answering open-ended questions is a simple way to facilitate critical thinking with students. However, many reading comprehension tools only allow students to answer multiple-choice questions, rather than requiring them to formulate their own answer.

Whooo’s Reading, an online reading log, not only requires students to answer open-ended questions, but every automatically prompted question is Common Core-aligned, so you can be sure your students are thinking about the text in terms of the various reading and writing anchors.

Learn more about how this tool has helped more than 10,000 teachers improve their students’ reading comprehension at the Learn2Earn teacher blog .

Neo K12: Flow Chart Games

While this tool only has pre-defined flow chart games, in a variety of categories ranging from life sciences to the human body, you can use them to inspire critical thinking where appropriate.

For example, use flow chart games when exploring photosynthesis . Students have to drag and drop the various stages in the right part of the cycle. Require each student to write what each part of the cycle is about for a complete interactive thinking activity. Note that use of this this tool requires a monthly subscription.

This online business tool was not made for the classroom; however, students can use it to map out the visual representation of a process, adding notes, colors and details to show their knowledge of the topic. All diagrams are saved in your “Online Diagram Library” so students can access this content when studying for an exam or to show their parents.

You also have access to a large database of pre-made diagrams . Use these as supplementary materials for a lesson you’ve already written or as examples of what you expect from students with their own diagram.

Translate this page from English...

*Machine translated pages not guaranteed for accuracy. Click Here for our professional translations.

Defining Critical Thinking

Language Models as Critical Thinking Tools: A Case Study of Philosophers

Current work in language models (LMs) helps us speed up or even skip thinking by accelerating and automating cognitive work. But can LMs help us with critical thinking — thinking in deeper, more reflective ways which challenge assumptions, clarify ideas, and engineer new concepts? We treat philosophy as a case study in critical thinking, and interview 21 professional philosophers about how they engage in critical thinking and on their experiences with LMs. We find that philosophers do not find LMs to be useful because they lack a sense of selfhood (memory, beliefs, consistency) and initiative (curiosity, proactivity). We propose the selfhood-initiative model for critical thinking tools to characterize this gap. Using the model, we formulate three roles LMs could play as critical thinking tools: the Interlocutor, the Monitor, and the Respondent. We hope that our work inspires LM researchers to further develop LMs as critical thinking tools and philosophers, and other ‘critical thinkers’ to imagine intellectually substantive uses of LMs.

[leftline=true, linecolor=black, topline=false, bottomline=false, rightline=false]leftbarquote

1 Introduction

“But I like the inconveniences.” — “We don’t,” responds the Controller. “We prefer to do things comfortably.” — “But I don’t want comfort,” John gasps. “I want God, I want poetry, I want real danger, I want freedom, I want goodness. I want sin.” — “In fact,” says the Controller, “you’re claiming the right to be unhappy … the right to live in constant apprehension of what may happen tomorrow; … the right to be tortured by unspeakable pains of every kind.” There is a long silence. “I claim them all,” says John at last.  ( Minimally adapted from Huxley ( 1932 ) .)

Language Models (LMs) have recently alleviated a whole host of our intellectual inconveniences. They can help us do things we would have begrudgingly done by ourselves otherwise: write code  (Chen et al., 2021 ; Rozière et al., 2023 ) , generate emails   (Goodman et al., 2022 ) , and translate text   (Costa-jussà et al., 2022 ) . In sparking ideas by generating stories  (Schwitzgebel et al., 2023 ) and concept designs  (Cai et al., 2023 ) , LMs offer shortcuts to gaining new thoughts. They also help us put our thinking into words by revising  (Mysore et al., 2023 ) and giving feedback  (Liang et al., 2024 ) on our writing. In all these cases, LMs help us speed up and circumvent the inconveniences of thinking ourselves.

In many contexts, however, the “inconvenience” of thinking is not a temporary problem to be alleviated, but a deep puzzle to be reflected upon. Many people are invested in specific areas of intellectual inquiry — e.g., historians, scientists, philosophers — and more generally, in reflection and engagement with the world — e.g., as informed political citizens, critical information consumers, and moral actors. They are interested in identifying and challenging assumptions, clarifying muddled ideas, and engineering new and useful ways to think. Core to this sort of inquiry is critical thinking — “the propensity and skill to engage in an activity with reflective skepticism”  (McPeck, 2016 ) . Can LMs serve as tools for critical thinking — helping us think more deeply and in more complex ways, rather than faster or not at all? What if — like John — we claim all the rights to think   (Buçinca et al., 2021 ) ?

To investigate how LMs can serve as critical thinking tools, we use philosophers as a case study — philosophers being people who are in the business of thinking critically about a wide range of concepts and ideas. We interview 21 professional philosophers to understand their thinking processes, collect their experiences with and views on current LMs, and brainstorm the roles LMs could play as critical thinking tools in philosophy (§ 3 ). We find that current philosophers do not think LMs are good critical thinking tools (§ 4 ) for two primary reasons: LMs are too neutral, detached, and nonjudgmental (§ 4.2 ); and LMs are too servile, passive, and incurious (§ 4.3 ). We propose the selfhood-initiative model for critical thinking tools, which explains why philosophers find conversations with other philosophers and reading philosophical texts to be more helpful for their work than current LMs (§ 5.1 ). Using the model, we describe three roles LMs could play as critical thinking tools: the Interlocutor, the Monitor, and the Respondent (§ 5.2 ). Finally, we outline how these LMs could inform metaphilosophical questions and shape the discipline of philosophy (§ 6.3 ), and discuss challenges in building LMs (§ 6.1 ) and interfaces (§ 6.2 ) for critical thinking.

2 Background and Related Work

2.1 language models as thinking tools.

A large and growing literature investigates how LMs can serve as thinking tools for humans engaged in intellectual work. This research tends to concern how LMs can serve two intellectual functions: idea stimulation (roughly, “divergent thinking”) and idea refinement (roughly, “convergent thinking”)  (Banathy, 1996 ; Design Council, 2019 ) .

LMs can provide stimulus for ideas — information and (re)formulations which provoke and guide creative processes. Generally, LMs can expand idea sets  (Fede et al., 2022 ) , produce creative analogies  (Bhavya et al., 2023 ) and metaphors  (Chakrabarty et al., 2021 ) ; discover concepts  (Lam et al., 2024 ) , and facilitate group ideation  (Rayan et al., 2024 ; Shaer et al., 2024 ) . LMs to open-endedly propose plots, characters, and entire stories for creative writers  (Calderwood et al., 2020 ; Schmitt & Buschek, 2021 ; Yuan et al., 2022 ; Mirowski et al., 2023 ; Chung et al., 2022 ; Chakrabarty et al., 2023 ) ; but also provide inspiration in more constrained creativity tasks, such as science writing  (Gero et al., 2021 ; Kim et al., 2023 ) . Although fraught with pitfalls  (Messeri & Crockett, 2024 ) , scientists can use LMs to find and synthesize literature  (Van Dinter et al., 2021 ; Wagner et al., 2022 ; Fok et al., 2023 ; Khraisha et al., 2024 ) and iterate through research inquiry  (Wang et al., 2023a ; Morris, 2023 ; Liu et al., 2024 ) . Designers can use LMs to generate and develop concept designs   (Cai et al., 2023 ; Liu et al., 2023 ; Ma et al., 2023 ; Chong et al., 2024 ; Ma et al., 2024 ; Chen et al., 2024 ) .

On the other hand, LMs can also aid the refinement of ideas – selecting from and improving upon an established existing pool of ideas. LMs can help writers by making suggested revisions  (Du et al., 2022 ; Zhao, 2022 ; Mysore et al., 2023 ; Shu et al., 2023 ) and clarifying writing goals  (Arnold et al., 2021 ; Kim et al., 2024 ) . For scientists, LMs can facilitate revision of scientific writing  (Liang et al., 2024 ; Radensky et al., 2024 ) ; for designers, LMs can provide feedback on  (Duan et al., 2024 ) and annotate  (Lu et al., 2024 ) UIs. In teaching settings, writing feedback given by LMs may be more motivating  (Meyer et al., 2024 ) and engaging  (Tanwar et al., 2024 ) than feedback given by other humans. Besides reviewing ideas, LMs can also curate them — for instance, by summarizing writing  (Fabbri et al., 2021 ; Dang et al., 2022 ) and identifying important ideas  (Lin et al., 2024 ) .

2.2 Language Models as Critical Thinking Tools

However, one part of the thinking process is clearly missing. One does not simply go from the stimulus for ideas to figuring out how to refine them: one needs to do the actual critical thinking , involving reflection upon ideas, judgment, and conceptual engineering. LMs can help provide the seeds for our ideas when we don’t have any (i.e., stimulus) and help us work through them once we’ve got them (i.e., refinement), but how can they help us with questioning, reorienting, analyzing, and developing ideas (i.e., critical thinking)?

There are many different definitions of critical thinking: “the propensity and skill to engage in an activity with reflective skepticism”  (McPeck, 2016 ) , “reasonable, reflective thinking that is focused on deciding what to believe or do”  (Ennis, 1993 ) , and “the development and evaluation of arguments”  (Facione, 1984 ) , among many others. Critical thinking requires many dispositions, such as seeking clear statements of questions, looking for alternatives, and being open-minded  (Ennis, 1987 ) . Critical thinking is what makes many areas of intellectual inquiry — such as history, science, and philosophy — difficult. In these areas, people must produce and work with observations that are incomplete and open to a multiplicity of framings to pursue problems with often unclear definitions of progress — a landscape which demands critical thinking. For instance, on different accounts, history requires interpreting the past with alternative (nonlinear, long-range) temporalities  (Braudel, 2023 ) , taking into account the ways in which power structures shape historical record and memory  (Foucault, 1969a ; Trouillot, 1995 ) , and identifying and manipulating narrative structures  (White, 1973 ; Gaddis, 2004 ) . Science requires advances not only in empirical work, but also reflection upon underlying paradigms of research  (Kuhn & Hawkins, 1963 ) , epistemology  (Harding, 2013 ) , and the social and material factors that constitute scientific knowledge  (Latour, 1989 ) .

Researchers across a variety of fields have developed a rich tapestry of approaches and tools to support critical thinking and related acts. Educators develop teaching strategies to promote critical thinking  (McPeck, 1990 ; Pithers & Soden, 2000 ) such as teaching and interlinking a variety of perspectives on a subject in an integrative manner  (Enciso et al., 2017 ) and encouraging students’ intellectual independence in finding answers to their questions  (Langer, 1997 ; Raths et al., 1966 ) . Psychologists and cognitive scientists seek to understand how cognitive mechanisms and biases inform how humans (should) develop critical thinking  (Carey, 1986 ; Reif, 2008 ) , emphasizing the cultivation of basic metacognitive “building blocks” of critical thinking  (Pasquinelli et al., 2021 ) and teaching for “practical theory”  (Gelder, 2005 ) . Meanwhile, human-computer interaction (HCI) researchers explore how interactions with computer applications can facilitate critical thinking: designers can provoke experiences of discomfort  (Benford et al., 2012 ; Halbert & Nathan, 2015 ) ; emphase understanding over rote expression in social contexts  (Kriplean et al., 2012 ; Sun et al., 2017 ) ; and build small “nudges”  (Liao & Wang, 2022 ) into interfaces which “prime”  (Yamamoto & Yamamoto, 2018 ) users towards reflective critical thinking  (Bentvelzen et al., 2022 ) ; among many others. Many of these themes will be revisited in our discussion of design proposals for LMs as critical thinking tools (§ 5.2 ).

A growing body of work has explored how LMs might contribute towards critical thinking. LM-based news and media can positively affect users’ willingness to think through opposing or novel viewpoints, which can be applied to combat polarization and extremism  (Tanprasert et al., 2024 ; Zarouali et al., 2021 ; Shin, 2022 ; Wang & Tanes-Ehle, 2022 ; Blasiak et al., 2021 ) . Cai et al. ( 2024 ) consider how currently “sycophantic”, “servile”, and “lobotimized” LMs can be used in more critical ways by challenging users’ pre-existing ideas and constructively using antagonistic interactions to develop their thinking. Danry et al. ( 2023 ); Ma et al. ( 2023 ); Park & Kulkarni ( 2023 ) show how LMs can facilitate human self-reflection and improve human reasoning by asking questions instead of only answering them (as in the typical LM interaction paradigm). Xu et al. ( 2024 ) encourage critical thinking by building LM interactions using structured templates (over free-form chat). In more targeted contexts, LMs can be used to help scientific researchers critically think about their impact statements  (Mukherjee et al., 2023 ) , and to help political theorists to metacognitively reflect upon their own creative processes and judgments  (Rodman, 2023 ) .

2.3 Philosophy as Critical Thinking, Critical Thinking as Philosophy

In this paper, we focus on philosophy as a case study for critical thinking. Philosophy is concerned with critical, systematic, and reflective examination of the world. This includes understanding the basic structure of life and the world — what does it mean to exist  (Aristotle, 350 BCE ; Heidegger, 1927 ; Sartre, 1943 ) , live  (Aurelius, 180 AD ) , and die  (Kierkegaard, 1983 ; Nietzsche, 1892 ) ?; what does it mean to know something  (Plato, 369BCE ; Kant, 1781 ; Husserl, 1931 ) and what are the limits of scientific knowledge   (Popper, 2002 ; Chalmers, 2013 ) ?; on what moral bases should we act  (Aristotle, 350BCE ; Spinoza, 1677 ) , and is it even possible to determine ‘objective’ answers to moral questions  (Hume, 1739 ; Harman & Thomson, 1996 ; Foucault, 1976 ) ? Core to philosophy is “the endeavour to know how and to what extent it might be possible to think differently, instead of legitimating what is already known”  (Foucault, 1976 ) . Philosophy is for intellectual creation and engineering: Deleuze & Guattari ( 1991 ) wrote that “So long as there is a place for creating concepts, the operation that undertakes this will always be called philosophy.” In thinking about how to think, philosophy is not only about suspicion toward the meanings and functions of phenomena, but also recovery of new significances and coherence  (Ricoeur, 1981 ) .

Contrary to the image that philosophy is “done in the armchair”, isolated and impractical, philosophy has always been intertwined with other lines of inquiry. Plato engaged extensively with advanced mathematics; Aristotle contributed to early physics; Hume leaned on psychology. Philosophy has asked and continues to ask urgent, relevant questions: for instance, how are we to understand the strangeness of quantum mechanics in physics  (Carnap, 1966 ) ; the relationship between consciousness (mind) and the brain (matter)  (Chalmers, 2013 ) ; and “fairness” and “justice” in contexts like algorithmic discrimination  (Hu, 2023 ) , legal punishment  (Alexander, 1922 ) , and the distribution of resources  (Rawls, 1971 ) ? Indeed, researchers in every area of intellectual inquiry confront philosophical questions in their work: they might ask if a model or concept is “really real” (and how they know so), what the “nature” of their object of study is, aim to formulate normative desiderata for their theories, and so on. Therefore, we study philosophers’ views and practices in this paper both because philosophers engage extensively in critical thinking and because many questions which require critical thinking asked by non-philosophers often have a philosophical flavor.

The first author conducted interviews with 21 professional philosophers at 14 philosophy departments at doctoral universities in the United States. We contacted and selected philosophers for high diversity across area of interest (e.g., ethics, political philosophy, philosophy of science). Interviews took place online and lasted between 30 to 60 minutes, depending on interviewee availability. Interviewees were asked how they philosophize (e.g., where ideas come from, how ideas are developed, what resources are needed) and their views on LMs (e.g., can LMs ‘do’ philosophy, how might they be useful for philosophizing). These questions followed a loose script (see § B ), although we asked novel follow-up questions to pursue interesting lines of inquiry raised by the interviewees’ responses. In cases where interviewees had very little or no prior exposure to LMs, they interacted live with the GPT-4 model on a philosophical topic of their choosing. We received IRB approval from our university to conduct the interviews; all interviewees confirmed their consent to participate in the study, and for their responses to inform the development of this paper. We qualitatively analyzed interview recordings and transcripts. Using an inductive approach  (Thomas, 2006 ) and open coding  (Charmaz, 2006 ) , we identified common themes and positions (yielding § 4 and § 5 ). We refer to interviewees with a unique identifier, e.g., (P1, P2, P3) (see § A ).

4 Language Models Are Not Good Critical Thinking Tools (So Far)

Many of the interviewed philosophers find LMs to be relevant and interesting, and some find them to have limited uses such as for undergraduate instruction  (P1, P13, P20) or becoming acquainted with a topic  (P5, P11, P12) . However, none of the philosophers were convinced that current LMs can reliably and conveniently assist them in the intellectually substantive ways which require critical thinking. Philosophers described current LMs as “boring” (P2) , “anodyne” (P4) , “bland” (P9) , and “cowardly” (P13) . We discovered two broad reasons for this. First, current LMs tend to be highly neutral, detached, and non-judgmental, often commenting on ideas in abstract and decontextualized ways (§ 4.2 ). Second, current LMs tend to be servile, passive, and incurious, which is unhelpful when the user does not yet have a clear vision of what they want to accomplish, restricting the variety of intellectual interactions possible  S 4.3 ).

4.1 How do philosophers philosophize?

A close investigation of how philosophers think through difficult philosophical questions can give us insight into the types of tools and interactions which support difficult critical thinking, and provide contrast with current LMs, which fail to perform the same function.

Where do philosophical ideas come from? Philosophers report that their ideas usually come from observing puzzles and tensions in the world, in which some aspect feels bothersome  (P5, P12, P20) , incomplete  (P10, P14) , in need of clarity  (P1, P13) , or outright incorrect  (P3) . Philosophers encounter these puzzles and tensions most commonly in open conversation with others  (P1, P2, P5, P9, P19) and while reading texts — books, papers, and monographs making explicitly philosophical arguments or touching upon philosophical themes  (P4, P7, P10, P12, P13, P20) . These puzzles may have an intellectual or logical character: terms might not be sufficiently disambiguated, inferences may not be valid, and propositions may entail absurd conclusions  (P8, P11) . However, for many, these tensions are identified and drawn out by ethical motivations  (P1, P8, P16, P12) . Tensions might arise not primarily because a proposition is incoherent, but rather because it appears ethically problematic. For instance, the trolley problem dilemma was used to probe the differences between doing and allowing harm, with applications to bioethics, particularly abortion  (Foot, 1967 ) . Several philosophers describe being inspired by texts communicating empirical work, seeking to provide explanations for empirical observations  (P1, P2, P16, P18) as well as subjecting the practices and products of the empirical sciences to critical inquiry  (P2, P7, P12, P13, P18) .

What do philosophers want out of their ideas? Once philosophers identify puzzles from conversations and texts, they aim to develop ideas which make progress on these puzzles. Progress is conceived of in many ways: “understand[ing] some part of the world better” (P3) , working through new ways to think about problems (P17) , and better understanding the current ways we think — for instance, by making implicit assumptions explicit and recognizing the implications of propositions  (P7) . Some philosophers describe a developed philosophical idea as a “picture” (P9, P10) which organizes subideas in a systematic way, allowing one to clearly see the main point(s). This often requires “conceptual engineering”  (P6) : challenging, disassembling, and rebuilding the ways in which we think.

The role of texts in philosophical development. Texts continue to actively support the philosophical development past the inception of the idea. Revisiting texts with an idea in mind can unearth new aspects of the text which comment on that idea  (P9) , and repeatedly consulting written ideas can be helpful for putting words to newly developed ideas  (P2, P20) . Because texts are static and highly accessible by many people, texts can become a shared basis for and markers in conversation with others  (P9, P19) . Moreover, because published texts are usually produced by people who have given a problem substantial time and thought, philosophers might approach them with more trust and charity  (P4) .

The role of conversation in philosophical development. Conversations with fellow philosophers are central to evaluating the coherence of ideas  (P21) , raising connections to other ideas and problems  (P5) , and collecting feedback  (P3, P10) . Conversations may force philosophers to explain and justify ideas they may have taken for granted  (P1) . Conversation helps philosophers gain confidence that their ideas are good intellectual contributions  (P2, P21) . Philosophers even simulate conversations in their head, taking on various positions for and against their ideas  (P1, P12) . Good philosophical conversation requires several conditions. The interlocutor should be charitable — genuinely listening to and working through ideas  (P1, P12) , and trusting  (P6, P14) — but also willing to boldly push ideas forward  (P3) and take intellectual risks  (P18) . Conversations may not be directed towards any clear goal; interlocutors must be able to “ riff off each other ”  (P8) and be willing to operate without a preset agenda  (P3, P4) . This requires interlocutors to be curious about addressing problems  (P21) ; it should be a collaborative effort, rather than a combative debate  (P3, P7) .

4.2 Language Models are neutral, detached, and nonjudgmental

Philosophers find intellectual value when the conversations and texts they encounter provide substantive and well-defended perspectives, but find that LMs do not do the same.

LMs are abstract, imprecise, and ‘skirt by’ questions. Because philosophy is interested in clearly stating and reflecting upon ideas, philosophers often place high value on precision in language. Changes to a formulation which seem trivial to a layperson may introduce important shifts in meaning for a philosopher. Meanwhile, LMs seem as if they ‘tell the user what they want to hear’, resulting in risk-averse and hand-waving behavior which produced abstract, imprecise, and ultimately intellectually uninteresting statements  (P5, P7, P15) . Interviewees noted that when they brought up problems with LMs’ responses, LMs skirted around the issue, producing superficially convincing corrections without really addressing the provided issue  (P1, P20) . LMs are highly factually knowledgeable  (P1) but fail to precisely express philosophical ideas; thus, LMs end up reinforcing the status quo rather than proposing substantive and interesting challenges  (P9) .

LM responses change too easily and don’t have ‘weight’. Several philosophers describe how easy it is for them to talk LMs into contradictions and incoherent outputs in the same session  (P4, P9) . LMs make “kneejerk reactions” to user concerns and are excellent at effusively apologizing, but don’t “ fully appreciate ” their mistakes and the user’s comments  (P14) . Moreover, LM responses seem highly sensitive to trivial changes in the prompt, making some philosophers wary of using them at all  (P21) . The ease with which one can manipulate an LM’s output seems to reduce their trustworthiness and value as tools  (P15) .

LM outputs don’t provide judgments. LMs often refrain from formulating serious judgments; they try to remain neutral and ‘see all sides’, but end up presenting all sides in placid and uninteresting ways  (P12, P17) . They tend to refrain from discussing controversial issues  (P4) , which is unfortunate given that philosophy prides itself on clearly thinking about otherwise-taboo topics of controversy. As such, LMs are perceived as “ cowardly ”, refusing to take solid positions and, in some sense, echoing the user  (P13) . “It [conversations with LMs] ends up being unproductive and unsatisfying… they don’t feel like persons because their language is often so bland and impersonal, non-Socratic, generic… they’re boring” (P9) .

LMs don’t have memory and context. Shared context from previous interactions with other humans serve to provide context for and situate ideas in conversation, allowing for efficiency of exploration (as already-exhausted ideas are not brought up again)  (P1, P14) . Because current popular LM interfaces ‘lose their memory’ of previous interactions in different sessions, LMs often produce general and decontextualized responses to user prompts  (P15) .

4.3 Language Models are servile, passive, and incurious

Philosophers find intellectual value when fellow philosophers develop their own lines of inquiry in conversation and texts, but find that LMs do not do the same.

LMs fail to be useful in open, undetermined contexts. LMs enthusiastically make “ my problem its problem ”  (P11) , but often philosophers do not have their ‘problem’ entirely clearly thought or formulated  (P5) . For certain basic tasks, “ ‘you have certain success metrics in mind, so you go to [an LM]; but what about truly open-ended conversations where you don’t have success conditions already laid out?”   (P7) LM answers often feel like they’ve been ‘packaged’ or return a ‘processed end result’, whereas “in the doing of philosophy, we want to be open, in service of a larger dialogue — philosophy as a process rather than as an end product”   (P5) . LMs don’t seem to have a drive to know the truth or care about convincing people  (P2, P21) — features which interviewees note energize interactions even when there is no clearly desired product.

LMs restrict the variety of intellectual interaction. The “incuriosity” of LMs severely limits possible intellectual interactions philosophers can have with it  (P7) . “It’s a question-answer platform. It won’t follow up with a “what do you think?” “I’m a little puzzled, how it could be?” “Oh gosh, how does it work?” You can’t have a conversation with [an LM] except one which is like an interview.” Several philosophers imagine alternative useful LM interactions in which LMs take on more intellectual risks and independent behaviors: instead of only answering questions, LMs could also ask them  (P12, P17) , or LMs might behave with hostility and antagonism towards users’ ideas  (P6, P8, P11) .

5 Designing Language Models for Critical Thinking

Thus far, we’ve introduced the problem of critical thinking and described how current LMs fail to be good critical thinking tools for philosophers. Here, we set out a formal model to characterize and compare critical thinking tools (§ 5.1 ). This allows us to imagine new roles for LMs, inspired by what makes people and texts useful as critical thinking tools (§ 5.2 ).

5.1 The Selfhood-Initiative Model

We use the two broad reasons why LMs fail to be good critical thinking tools in § 4 as the basis for the model’s two axes: current LMs have low selfhood , as they are neutral, detached, and nonjudgmental; they have low initiative , as they are servile, passive, and incurious. In particular, selfhood is a resource’s ability to have certain locally persistent internal states (such as perspectives, beliefs, opinions, memory) and to consistently use them as the basis for judgments. The resource’s internal states may change over time due to new knowledge and experiences, but in an intentional and logical (rather than an arbitrary and capricious) manner. Current LMs exhibit low selfhood (§ 4.2 ). Initiative is a resource’s ability to set its own intentions and goals, possibly different from its user’s, and to execute actions oriented towards those intentions. High-initiative resources are not strictly or existentially bound to their user’s directives, and may deviate from them. Current LMs exhibit low initiative (§ 4.3 ). These two axes form the selfhood-initiative model for critical thinking tools. Our model is distinct from previous models proposed for the study of critical thinking in that (a) we model types of critical thinking tools rather than the (human) process of critical thinking   (Schön, 1987 ; Shneiderman, 2000 , inter alia ) , and (b) we explore the interaction between selfhood and initiative, which have each independently been explored in some capacity by others  (Cai et al., 2024 ; Guo et al., 2024 ; Hilliard et al., 2024 , inter alia ) . Our model explains why philosophers find texts and other people (but not LMs) to be useful tools, and further provides a design space for LMs as critical thinking tools (§ 5.2 ).

Why do philosophers find other people and texts to be useful critical thinking tools? In the selfhood-initiative model, other people are high-selfhood, variable-initiative tools . People have specific backgrounds and experiences which inform their views, perspectives, and beliefs; these influence how they understand and respond. Philosophers find value in talking to other people often because of their selfhood; they expect that they will receive interesting judgements and comments, rather than placid neutrality. However, these people may have variable initiative, depending on the situation. In free-flowing conversation, each interlocutor may carry the conversation in some direction, whereas in a more focused conversation aimed at collecting feedback, an interlocutor may be expected to directly respond to one’s ideas and requests without their own intellectual initiative. The high selfhood of other people is helpful because it provides particular perspectives and ways of looking into the problem space. Meanwhile, in the selfhood-initiative model, texts are high-initiative, variable-selfhood tools . Texts are not themselves responsive to a user’s intentions  (Plato, 370BCE ) ; they express the author’s attempt to fulfill their intentions, and one encounters the product of this attempt after the fact of its production. The text’s exteriority from the user allows the user to reflect upon similarities and differences between their own thinking and the tool’s outputs. On the other hand, the way in which texts are written can vary in the degree of selfhood they express. Informative, survey-based, and clarificatory papers tend to de-emphasize an author’s perspectives and opinions, whereas more explicitly argumentative papers may center them; both can be useful to philosophers in different ways.

Why don’t philosophers find current LMs to be useful critical thinking tools? In the selfhood-initiative model, current LMs are low-selfhood, low-initiative tools . They do not provide philosophers with particular concrete perspectives into the problem space, nor do they provide ideas sufficiently exterior to a philosopher’s own thinking to allow for meaningful reflection and connections. These properties make LMs particularly useful for alternative modes of thought, such as carrying out rote and well-defined tasks and helping rewrite sentences, but not for stimulating critical thinking.

5.2 Three Roles for Language Models as Critical Thinking Tools

According to the selfhood-initiative model, good critical thinking tools should have high selfhood, high initiative, or both. From our model, we set out three roles of LMs for philosophy — the Interlocutor, the Monitor, and the Respondent — corresponding to the three viable cells in the selfhood-initiative model (high-selfhood, high-initiative; low-selfhood, high-initiative; high-selfhood, low-initiative). Implementations for these roles vary — some might be achievable with only moderate prompt engineering, whereas others might necessitate radically different user interfaces or model training methods.

The Interlocutor ∘ \circ ∘ high-selfhood, high-initiative . Philosophers mention that they often get their ideas in free-flowing conversation with fellow philosophers or from reading literature that makes arguments which seem tenuous, incorrect, or incomplete (§ 4.1 ). In the terms of the selfhood-initiative model, these are high-selfhood, high-initiative tools. As a role for LMs, the Interlocutor would invert many of the human-AI relationships taken for granted in current LMs. Rather than attempting to remain neutral, the Interlocutor makes judgments and takes positions based on its perspectives. Rather than accommodating and affirming users’ every response, the Interlocutor thinks through and challenges or disagrees with what its users say; it responds or modifies its own beliefs if users make reasonable points. Rather than remaining passive and answering user questions, the Interlocutor asks its own questions in pursuit of its ‘own’ interests, and refuses or redirects certain lines of inquiry in favor of others. Rather than being amnesic and detached, the Interlocutor draws upon its persistent memories and beliefs across sessions to produce ideas. The Interlocutor does not need to be strictly antagonistic , as explored in Cai et al. ( 2024 ) ; indeed, it may be charitable and polite, much like colleagues, while at the same time resisting the ‘servility’ and ‘sycophancy’ disrupted by the antagonistic paradigm.

The Monitor ∘ \circ ∘ low-selfhood, high-initiative . While developing ideas, philosophers consciously or unconsciously encounter various “ decision junctures ” at which they use certain approaches or pursue certain ideas over others  (P6) . Many philosophers suggest that it may be important to reduce, or at least become more aware of, the choices at ‘unconscious decision junctures’  (P6, P2, P7) . Without such awareness, philosophers may expose their ideas to imprecision (‘which path did you exactly take?’) and objections (‘why this path and not others?’); moreover, these choices may reproduce personal and disciplinary biases, reifying metaphilosophical problems (§ 6.3 ). As a role for LMs, the Monitor acts as a ‘checks and balances’ on philosophizing; it is not interested in retaining self-consistency or in expressing particular points of view (low selfhood), but has high initiative to provide a variety of ideas and resources to the user. The Monitor functions similarly to survey texts which provide a ‘lay of the land’, illustrating different approaches and ideas to help philosophers situate their ideas, able to take all sorts of changing sides with the initiative to challenge and confront. The Monitor’s suggestions may or may not be directly relevant to the philosopher’s work, but act as reference guides — to which the philosopher might think, “that’s a related idea, maybe there’s a connection here” or “that doesn’t seem directly related, but it’s good to have in mind”. Moreover, the Monitor may ask a variety of uncomfortable and unexpected methodological questions aimed at clarifying philosophers’ decisions.

The Respondent ∘ \circ ∘ high-selfhood, low-initiative . As philosophers develop their ideas, they want to understand how others might react — better understanding possible misinterpretations, objections, and clarification questions which may arise  (P6, P10, P12) . These reactions should have high selfhood to be substantive and particular, and low initiative to remain directly focused on the user’s ideas. As a role for LMs, the Respondent adopts a specific set of beliefs and perspectives and reacts directly to the user’s ideas; it does not merely role-play or superficially caricature different positions, but should have consistent memories and beliefs which are reasonably open to change  (P4) rather than dogmatically fixed. Interactions with the Respondent may inform how the philosopher formulates and presents their ideas; they may anticipate certain objections and strengthen its appeal and utility. The Respondent can also be counterfactually helpful: if an agent representing an unsavory position resonates with a philosopher’s argument, then that philosopher might reconsider how their argument is expressed, not only defending but also delimiting the scope of their argument  (P6) .

6 Discussion

6.1 challenges for language modeling.

Critical thinking can serve as another of many “north stars” in LM research, guiding what we want from LMs. Corresponding to the limitations of language models discussed in § 4.2 and § 4.3 are several concrete areas for further LM research. LMs will need to become more convincing agents  (Andreas, 2022 ) which can represent specific positions and belief systems  (Scherrer et al., 2023 ; Jin et al., 2024 ) 3 ; stay consistent with them  (Chen et al., 2021 ; Zhao et al., 2024 ) 2 ; and commit towards and draw from long-term memory  (Wang et al., 2023b ) 4 . In particular, LLMs will need to concretely reason about “uncommon sense” 1 2 , seriously considering positions which deviate from intuitively true or correct ways of thinking about the world  (Bisk et al., 2020 ; Ziems et al., 2023 ; Hendrycks et al., 2021 ; Pock et al., 2023 ) . This may require rethinking how we align LMs  (Ouyang et al., 2022 ; Sorensen et al., 2024 ) , given that humans tend to be drawn towards confident common-sense responses  (P5) . LMs will need to improve their long-range planning  (Hao et al., 2023 ) and act autonomously  (Händler, 2023 )   1 , operating in cases where there is no clear algorithm for solving a problem  (P4, P3, P8) ; LMs will need to take effective conceptual risks without clear immediate payoffs  (P18) and reason about unsettled and open ideas  (P8) . To support more diverse forms of interaction beyond question answering or task execution  2 , LMs will need to significantly improve in theory of mind  (Jamali et al., 2023 ; Strachan et al., 2024 ) . LMs need to “understand what’s happening [in the conversation] without it being explicitly said, because.. you haven’t fully expressed it to yourself yet”   (P8) , which will allow them to focus on the significant rather than irrelevant or obvious paths of inquiry in conversation  (P6, P8) .

6.2 Challenges for Human-AI Interaction

In addition to modeling challenges , there are several interaction design challenges when developing LMs for critical thinking. First, philosophers tend to highly value thinking through things themselves ; many emphasize that the intellectually substantive parts of philosophy cannot be naively ‘accelerated’  (P1, P7, P14, P17) . Philosophers find the process of thinking to be intrinsically valuable, even when it does not produce obvious payoffs  (P3, P6, P8) — a feature common to other areas of critical thinking. Additionally, philosophers may feel that authorship of ideas requires that the ideas be ‘ mine ’, and that ‘ I ’ should be responsible for making the important intellectual judgments  (P4, P10, P18) . Secondly, it can be difficult and even disruptive to put ideas into words . Although professional philosophy is mainly formally done in language, the process of thinking through ideas can involve many other dimensions of representation and thinking  (P2, P3, P4, P5) . Among other challenges, philosophers cite the apparent incongruence between ideas and language as a source of significant burden in learning how to effectively use LMs (P8, P21) . This may be true for many other areas of critical thinking. Thirdly, philosophers find that human connection is enjoyable and important . Besides giving rise to unexpected philosophical connections and ideas (P6) , conversation with another human is deeply enjoyable and fulfilling, on its own merits (P8, P21) . Moreover, some philosophers feel that serious philosophical inquiry requires some kind of subjectivity or lived experience (P6, P8, P16) . Therefore, LMs will need to coexist with and enrich, rather than seek to replace, the ecosystem of human and textual resources already available to philosophers and other professional critical thinkers.

6.3 LMs Help Think About and Address Metaphilosophical Problems

Throughout our interviews, we found that thinking through how LMs can serve as critical thinking tools raises many interesting metaphilosophical questions. What does it mean to ‘do’ philosophy, and who or what can ‘do’ it? How mechanical is philosophy? What is ‘thinking’? Our findings in § 4.1 provide some empirical illumination for these questions. Philosophers found concretely reflecting on these questions — provoked by thinking about LMs’ role in doing philosophy — to be interesting and helpful  (P1, P7, P15, P20) .

However, LMs may also play an active precursory role in addressing metaphilosophical problems. Philosophers have articulated a host of concerns about the philosophical method and discipline: for instance, philosophers’ standards for argumentation may exclude more diverse forms of philosophical inquiry  Diamond ( 1982 ); Dotson ( 2012 ) , and their methods for categorizing ‘schools of thought’ (such as the analytic-continental distinction) may be counterproductive  (Dolcini, 2007 ) , reconcilable  (Levy, 2003 ; Bell et al., 2016 ) , and not really substantive  (Mizrahi & Dickinson, 2021 ; Thomson, 2019 ) . Certainly, these concerns point towards deeply entrenched sociological features of the discipline. This entrenchment is a dialectic between disciplinary structure and individual philosophers, wherein the former (materially) constrains the latter and the latter works within the lines of (and reproduces) the former. LMs might contribute towards disrupting this second direction: drawing philosophers’ attention outside the canon and across schools of thought as Interlocutors and Monitors, and representing these positions and methodologies as Respondents – possibly more approachably and accessibly than humans could. Consider Heidegger ( 1927 ) ’s metaphorical carpenter: busy at work, the hammer is “ready-at-hand”, unnoticed. It is when it breaks that it becomes “present-at-hand”, noticed — an object of conscious reflection. Arguably, the philosopher must engage with ideas and methods present-, rather than ready-, at-hand  (Plato, 380 BC ) , but the ability to engage in this way is a function of the tools and circumstances around us, and therefore often legitimately difficult  (Ahmed, 2006 ) . LMs can help, so to speak, ‘make the present-at-hand, ready-at-hand’ in a way that philosophical humans and texts cannot. Respectfully building LMs with selfhood and/or initiative into the philosopher’s material workspace – the text editor, the article viewer, and so on – can prompt ‘present-at-hand’ reflection in quiet moments and directions which a philosopher may have neglected as ready-to-hand. These small interactions, at scale, might introduce cracks into metaphilosophical edifices that philosophers would like less entrenched.

7 Conclusion: Towards Living Script

In his masterwork Jerusalem , Moses Mendelssohn writes that philosophy has too long prioritized a dead form of interaction, one which stifles human interaction and innovation: “ We teach and instruct one another only through writings; we learn to know nature and human only from writings. We work and relax, edify and amuse ourselves through scribbling… ”  (Mendelssohn, 1783 , 41) . In response, Mendelssohn calls for a turn towards a living script , “arousing the mind and heart, full of meaning, continuously inspiring thought” . The living script is a way of engaging with tools that inspire and support our critical thinking; it is an ideal both for LM researchers, philosophers, and all of us — as thinkers and humans — to aspire towards. As potential technologies for reading and writing our living script, LMs can offer critical thinkers a more wide and accessible set of ways to support the development of ideas and to shape disciplinary practices and cultures. In the face of intellectual automation, it begins by saying, with John, for the rights and responsibilities to critically think: “We claim them all.”

Ethics Statement

Although exploring ‘uncommon sense’ is important for critical thinking, we acknowledge that it can also be a deeply uncomfortable and unsettling experience. Disagreement can feel awkward in many contexts in daily life, even though it may not in designated spaces: “one of the best gifts a philosopher can give another is a good counterexample… in philosophy, we like a challenge, a pushback, for people to think that we’re wrong. That’s where philosophers thrive”   (P5) . Moreover, common sense encodes certain ethical or moral norms, such as “pain is bad” and “racism is unjust”; critical thinking tools may facilitate the revisiting and challenging of these norms in apparently inappropriate ways. To be sure, there is great value in this practice. We may not only want to believe in true things but also know the right or best reasons for why we should believe in them (in what sense of ‘bad’ is pain bad ? why is racism unjust?), since having poor reasons for a belief may undermine the belief without our knowledge. Moreover, supposedly obvious moral principles and norms can be utilized to support positions we might think to be unsavory or misguided (e.g., racism is unjust, so we should only pursue a strictly ‘colorblind’ public policy); it is difficult to identify this if one does not adopt a critical view towards the entire system. Nevertheless, LMs can serve many purposes, and being critical thinking tools is just one of them. Low-selfhood and low-initiative tools are needed to accomplish many other important tasks. Users should consent to critical interactions with LMs.

Some interviewees expressed that LMs raised difficult questions about academic integrity and authorship of ideas. It should be noted that because critical thinking tools are intended to support the process of thinking rather than replacing it, there is little risk of outright plagiarism , provided the tools are designed properly and used as intended. Nevertheless, there are interesting ethical questions about ownership of ideas with respect to involvement in their development. If a colleague’s offhand comment sparks an idea, leading to a publication, (how) should the colleague be credited? What if instead they intentionally discuss and develop an idea with you? What is an author  (Foucault, 1969b ) ? The question of how LMs as critical thinking tools should be credited joins the broader existing rich discourse of how generative AI in general should be credited in intellectual production  (Hullman et al., 2023 ; Jenkins & Lin, 2023 ; Simon et al., 2024 ; Springer, 2024 , inter alia ) .

• Ahmed (2006) Sara Ahmed. Queer Phenomenology: Orientations, Objects, Others . Duke University Press, Durham, NC, 2006. ISBN 978-0-8223-3914-4. URL https://doi.org/10.1215/9780822388074 .
• Alexander (1922) Julian P. Alexander. Philosophy of punishment. Journal of the American Institute of Criminal Law and Criminology , 13:235, 1922.
• Andreas (2022) Jacob Andreas. Language models as agent models. In Yoav Goldberg, Zornitsa Kozareva, and Yue Zhang (eds.), Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2022 , pp.  5769–5779, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, December 2022. Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/2022.findings-emnlp.423 . URL https://aclanthology.org/2022.findings-emnlp.423 .
• Aristotle (350 BCE) Aristotle. Metaphysics . 350 BCE.
• Aristotle (350BCE) Aristotle. Nicomachean Ethics . 350BCE.
• Arnold et al. (2021) Kenneth C. Arnold, April M. Volzer, and Noah G. Madrid. Generative models can help writers without writing for them. In IUI Workshops , 2021. URL https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2903/IUI21WS-HAIGEN-1.pdf .
• Aurelius (180 AD) Marcus Aurelius. Meditations . 180 AD.
• Banathy (1996) Bela H. Banathy. Designing Social Systems in a Changing World . Springer US, 1996. ISBN 978-0-306-45251-2.
• Bell et al. (2016) Jeffrey A. Bell, Andrew Cutrofello, and Paul M. Livingston (eds.). Beyond the Analytic-Continental Divide: Pluralist Philosophy in the Twenty-First Century . Routledge, 2016. ISBN 9781138787360.
• Benford et al. (2012) Steve Benford, Chris Greenhalgh, Gabriella Giannachi, Brendan Walker, Joe Marshall, and Tom Rodden. Uncomfortable interactions. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’12) , pp.  2005–2014, New York, NY, USA, 2012. Association for Computing Machinery. doi: 10.1145/2207676.2208347 . URL https://doi.org/10.1145/2207676.2208347 .
• Bentvelzen et al. (2022) Marit Bentvelzen, Paweł W. Woźniak, Pia S.F. Herbes, Evropi Stefanidi, and Jasmin Niess. Revisiting reflection in hci: Four design resources for technologies that support reflection. Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies , 6(1), 2022. doi: 10.1145/3517233 . URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3517233 .
• Bhavya et al. (2023) Bhavya Bhavya, Jinjun Xiong, and Chengxiang Zhai. Cam: A large language model-based creative analogy mining framework. In Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2023 , pp.  3903–3914, New York, NY, USA, April 2023. ACM. doi: 10.1145/3543507.3587431 . URL https://doi.org/10.1145/3543507.3587431 .
• Bisk et al. (2020) Yonatan Bisk, Rowan Zellers, Ronan Le Bras, Jianfeng Gao, and Yejin Choi. PIQA: reasoning about physical commonsense in natural language, 2020. URL https://doi.org/10.1609/aaai.v34i05.6239 .
• Blasiak et al. (2021) Kevin M. Blasiak, Marten Risius, and Sabine Matook. Conceptualising social bots for countering online extremist messages. In ACIS 2021 Proceedings , pp.  81, 2021. URL https://aisel.aisnet.org/acis2021/81 .
• Braudel (2023) Fernand Braudel. The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in the Age of Philip II: Volume I . The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in the Age of Philip II. University of California Press, 2023. ISBN 9780520400658.
• Buçinca et al. (2021) Zana Buçinca, Maja Barbara Malaya, and Krzysztof Z. Gajos. To trust or to think: Cognitive forcing functions can reduce overreliance on ai in ai-assisted decision-making. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. , 5(CSCW1), apr 2021. doi: 10.1145/3449287 . URL https://doi.org/10.1145/3449287 .
• Cai et al. (2023) Alice Cai, Steven R Rick, Jennifer L Heyman, Yanxia Zhang, Alexandre Filipowicz, Matthew Hong, Matt Klenk, and Thomas Malone. Designaid: Using generative ai and semantic diversity for design inspiration. In Proceedings of The ACM Collective Intelligence Conference , CI ’23, pp.  1–11, New York, NY, USA, 2023. Association for Computing Machinery. ISBN 9798400701139. doi: 10.1145/3582269.3615596 . URL https://doi.org/10.1145/3582269.3615596 .
• Cai et al. (2024) Alice Cai, Ian Arawjo, and Elena L. Glassman. Antagonistic ai, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.07350 .
• Calderwood et al. (2020) Alex Calderwood, Vivian Qiu, Katy Ilonka Gero, and Lydia B. Chilton. How novelists use generative language models: An exploratory user study. In Werner Geyer, Yasaman Khazaeni, and Michal Shmueli-Scheuer (eds.), Joint Proceedings of the Workshops on Human-AI Co-Creation with Generative Models and User-Aware Conversational Agents co-located with 25th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (IUI 2020), Cagliari, Italy, March 17, 2020 , volume 2848 of CEUR Workshop Proceedings . CEUR-WS.org, 2020. URL https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2848/HAI-GEN-Paper-3.pdf .
• Carey (1986) Susan Carey. Cognitive science and science education. American psychologist , 41(10):1123, 1986.
• Carnap (1966) Rudolf Carnap. Philosophical Foundations of Physics . Basic Books, Inc. Publishers, New York, first printing edition, 1966. ISBN 00008545.
• Chakrabarty et al. (2021) Tuhin Chakrabarty, Xurui Zhang, Smaranda Muresan, and Nanyun Peng. MERMAID: metaphor generation with symbolism and discriminative decoding. In Kristina Toutanova, Anna Rumshisky, Luke Zettlemoyer, Dilek Hakkani-Tür, Iz Beltagy, Steven Bethard, Ryan Cotterell, Tanmoy Chakraborty, and Yichao Zhou (eds.), Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, NAACL-HLT 2021, Online, June 6-11, 2021 , pp.  4250–4261. Association for Computational Linguistics, 2021. doi: 10.18653/V1/2021.NAACL-MAIN.336 . URL https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2021.naacl-main.336 .
• Chakrabarty et al. (2023) Tuhin Chakrabarty, Vishakh Padmakumar, Faeze Brahman, and Smaranda Muresan. Creativity support in the age of large language models: An empirical study involving emerging writers. ArXiv , abs/2309.12570, 2023.
• Chalmers (2013) Alan F. Chalmers. What Is This Thing Called Science? Hackett Publishing Company, Inc., fourth edition, Sep 2013. ISBN 978-1624660382.
• Charmaz (2006) Kathy Charmaz. Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis . SAGE Publications Ltd, 1 edition, 1 2006. ISBN 978-0761973539.
• Chen et al. (2024) Liuqing Chen, Yiyan Tsang, Qianzhi Jing, and Lingyun Sun. A llm-augmented morphological analysis approach for conceptual design. In C. Gray, E. Ciliotta Chehade, P. Hekkert, L. Forlano, P. Ciuccarelli, and P. Lloyd (eds.), DRS2024: Boston , Boston, USA, June 23–28 2024. Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China; Zhejiang-Singapore Innovation and AI Joint Research Lab, Hangzhou, China. doi: 10.21606/drs.2024.605 .
• Chen et al. (2021) Mark Chen, Jerry Tworek, Heewoo Jun, Qiming Yuan, Henrique Pondé de Oliveira Pinto, Jared Kaplan, Harrison Edwards, Yuri Burda, Nicholas Joseph, Greg Brockman, Alex Ray, Raul Puri, Gretchen Krueger, Michael Petrov, Heidy Khlaaf, Girish Sastry, Pamela Mishkin, Brooke Chan, Scott Gray, Nick Ryder, Mikhail Pavlov, Alethea Power, Lukasz Kaiser, Mohammad Bavarian, Clemens Winter, Philippe Tillet, Felipe Petroski Such, Dave Cummings, Matthias Plappert, Fotios Chantzis, Elizabeth Barnes, Ariel Herbert-Voss, William Hebgen Guss, Alex Nichol, Alex Paino, Nikolas Tezak, Jie Tang, Igor Babuschkin, Suchir Balaji, Shantanu Jain, William Saunders, Christopher Hesse, Andrew N. Carr, Jan Leike, Joshua Achiam, Vedant Misra, Evan Morikawa, Alec Radford, Matthew Knight, Miles Brundage, Mira Murati, Katie Mayer, Peter Welinder, Bob McGrew, Dario Amodei, Sam McCandlish, Ilya Sutskever, and Wojciech Zaremba. Evaluating large language models trained on code, 2021. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2107.03374 .
• Chong et al. (2024) Leah Chong, Jude Rayan, Steven Dow, Ioanna Lykourentzou, and Faez Ahmed. Cad-prompted generative models: A pathway to feasible and novel engineering designs, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.08675 .
• Chung et al. (2022) John Joon Young Chung, Wooseok Kim, Kang Min Yoo, Hwaran Lee, Eytan Adar, and Minsuk Chang. Talebrush: Sketching stories with generative pretrained language models. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , CHI ’22, New York, NY, USA, 2022. Association for Computing Machinery. ISBN 9781450391573. doi: 10.1145/3491102.3501819 . URL https://doi.org/10.1145/3491102.3501819 .
• Costa-jussà et al. (2022) Marta R. Costa-jussà, James Cross, Onur Çelebi, Maha Elbayad, Kenneth Heafield, Kevin Heffernan, Elahe Kalbassi, Janice Lam, Daniel Licht, Jean Maillard, Anna Y. Sun, Skyler Wang, Guillaume Wenzek, Al Youngblood, Bapi Akula, Loïc Barrault, Gabriel Mejia Gonzalez, Prangthip Hansanti, John Hoffman, Semarley Jarrett, Kaushik Ram Sadagopan, Dirk Rowe, Shannon Spruit, Chau Tran, Pierre Andrews, Necip Fazil Ayan, Shruti Bhosale, Sergey Edunov, Angela Fan, Cynthia Gao, Vedanuj Goswami, Francisco Guzmán, Philipp Koehn, Alexandre Mourachko, Christophe Ropers, Safiyyah Saleem, Holger Schwenk, and Jeff Wang. No language left behind: Scaling human-centered machine translation, 2022. URL https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2207.04672 .
• Dang et al. (2022) Hai Dang, Karim Benharrak, Florian Lehmann, and Daniel Buschek. Beyond text generation: Supporting writers with continuous automatic text summaries. In Proceedings of the 35th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology , UIST ’22, New York, NY, USA, 2022. Association for Computing Machinery. ISBN 9781450393201. doi: 10.1145/3526113.3545672 . URL https://doi.org/10.1145/3526113.3545672 .
• Danry et al. (2023) Valdemar Danry, Pat Pataranutaporn, Yaoli Mao, and Pattie Maes. Don’t just tell me, ask me: Ai systems that intelligently frame explanations as questions improve human logical discernment accuracy over causal ai explanations. In CHI ’23: Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , pp.  352:1–352:13, New York, NY, USA, April 2023. Association for Computing Machinery. doi: 10.1145/3544548.3580672 . URL https://doi.org/10.1145/3544548.3580672 .
• Deleuze & Guattari (1991) Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari. What is Philosophy? Les éditions de Minuit, France, 1996 columbia university press edition edition, 1991. ISBN 978-0231079891. English translation published in 1994 by Columbia University Press.
• Design Council (2019) Design Council. What is the framework for innovation? design council’s evolved double diamond, 2019. URL https://web.archive.org/web/20190926213512/https://www.designcouncil.org.uk/news-opinion/what-framework-innovation-design-councils-evolved-double-diamond . Accessed: 2024-08-04.
• Diamond (1982) Cora Diamond. Anything but argument? Philosophical Investigations , 5(1):23–41, 1982. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9205.1982.tb00532.x . URL https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-9205.1982.tb00532.x .
• Dolcini (2007) Nevia Dolcini. The analytic/continental divide: Entities and being. Soochow Journal of Philosophical Studies , 16:283–302, 2007.
• Dotson (2012) Kristie Dotson. How is this paper philosophy? Comparative Philosophy , 3(1):03–29, 2012. ISSN 2151-6014. URL https://www.comparativephilosophy.org .
• Du et al. (2022) Wanyu Du, Zae Myung Kim, Vipul Raheja, Dhruv Kumar, and Dongyeop Kang. Read, revise, repeat: A system demonstration for human-in-the-loop iterative text revision. In Proceedings of the First Workshop on Intelligent and Interactive Writing Assistants (In2Writing 2022) . Association for Computational Linguistics, 2022. doi: 10.18653/v1/2022.in2writing-1.14 . URL http://dx.doi.org/10.18653/v1/2022.in2writing-1.14 .
• Duan et al. (2024) Peitong Duan, Jeremy Warner, Yang Li, and Bjoern Hartmann. Generating automatic feedback on ui mockups with large language models. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , CHI ’24, New York, NY, USA, 2024. Association for Computing Machinery. ISBN 9798400703300. doi: 10.1145/3613904.3642782 . URL https://doi.org/10.1145/3613904.3642782 .
• Enciso et al. (2017) Olga Lucía Uribe Enciso, Diana Sofía Uribe Enciso, and María del Pilar Vargas Daza. Critical thinking and its importance in education: Some reflections. Rastros Rostros , 19(34):78–88, 2017.
• Ennis (1987) Robert H. Ennis. A taxonomy of critical thinking dispositions and abilities . W H Freeman/Times Books/ Henry Holt & Co, 1987.
• Ennis (1993) Robert H Ennis. Critical thinking assessment. Theory into practice , 32(3):179–186, 1993.
• Fabbri et al. (2021) Alexander R. Fabbri, Wojciech Kryściński, Bryan McCann, Caiming Xiong, Richard Socher, and Dragomir Radev. SummEval: Re-evaluating Summarization Evaluation. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics , 9:391–409, 04 2021. ISSN 2307-387X. doi: 10.1162/tacl˙a˙00373 . URL https://doi.org/10.1162/tacl_a_00373 .
• Facione (1984) Peter A Facione. Toward a theory of critical thinking. Liberal Education , 70(3):253–61, 1984.
• Fede et al. (2022) Giulia Di Fede, Davide Rocchesso, Steven P. Dow, and Salvatore Andolina. The idea machine: Llm-based expansion, rewriting, combination, and suggestion of ideas. pp.  623–627, 2022. doi: 10.1145/3527927.3535197 . URL https://doi.org/10.1145/3527927.3535197 .
• Fok et al. (2023) Raymond Fok, Hita Kambhamettu, Luca Soldaini, Jonathan Bragg, Kyle Lo, Marti A. Hearst, Andrew Head, and Daniel S. Weld. Scim: Intelligent skimming support for scientific papers. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (IUI ’23) , pp.  15, New York, NY, USA, March 27–31 2023. ACM. doi: 10.1145/3581641.3584034 .
• Foot (1967) Philippa Foot. The problem of abortion and the doctrine of the double effect. Oxford Review , 5:5–15, 1967.
• Foucault (1969a) Michel Foucault. The Archaeology of Knowledge . Éditions Gallimard, 1969a.
• Foucault (1969b) Michel Foucault. Qu’est-ce qu’un auteur? (what is an author?). Lecture given at the Société Française de Philosophie, February 22 1969b.
• Foucault (1976) Michel Foucault. Histoire de la sexualité: La volonté de savoir , volume 1 of Histoire de la sexualité . Éditions Gallimard, Paris, 1976.
• Gaddis (2004) John Lewis Gaddis. The Landscape of History: How Historians Map the Past . Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 1st edition, 2004. ISBN 978-0195171570.
• Gelder (2005) Tim van Gelder. Teaching critical thinking: Some lessons from cognitive science. College teaching , 53(1):41–48, 2005.
• Gero et al. (2021) K. Gero, Vivian Liu, and Lydia B. Chilton. Sparks: Inspiration for science writing using language models. Proceedings of the 2022 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference , 2021.
• Goodman et al. (2022) Steven M. Goodman, Erin Buehler, Patrick Clary, Andy Coenen, Aaron Donsbach, Tiffanie N. Horne, Michal Lahav, Robert MacDonald, Rain Breaw Michaels, Ajit Narayanan, Mahima Pushkarna, Joel Riley, Alex Santana, Lei Shi, Rachel Sweeney, Phil Weaver, Ann Yuan, and Meredith Ringel Morris. Lampost: Design and evaluation of an ai-assisted email writing prototype for adults with dyslexia. In The 24th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (ASSETS ’22) , pp.  17, Athens, Greece, 2022. ACM. doi: 10.1145/3517428.3544819 .
• Guo et al. (2024) Taicheng Guo, Xiuying Chen, Yaqi Wang, Ruidi Chang, Shichao Pei, Nitesh V. Chawla, Olaf Wiest, and Xiangliang Zhang. Large language model based multi-agents: A survey of progress and challenges, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.01680 .
• Halbert & Nathan (2015) Helen Halbert and Lisa P. Nathan. Designing for discomfort: Supporting critical reflection through interactive tools. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing , CSCW ’15, pp.  349–360, New York, NY, USA, 2015. Association for Computing Machinery. ISBN 9781450329224. doi: 10.1145/2675133.2675162 . URL https://doi.org/10.1145/2675133.2675162 .
• Händler (2023) Thorsten Händler. Balancing autonomy and alignment: A multi-dimensional taxonomy for autonomous llm-powered multi-agent architectures, 2023. URL https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2310.03659 .
• Hao et al. (2023) Shibo Hao, Yi Gu, Haodi Ma, Joshua Hong, Zhen Wang, Daisy Wang, and Zhiting Hu. Reasoning with language model is planning with world model, December 2023. URL https://aclanthology.org/2023.emnlp-main.507 .
• Harding (2013) Sandra Harding. Rethinking standpoint epistemology: What is “strong objectivity”? In Feminist epistemologies , pp.  49–82. Routledge, 2013.
• Harman & Thomson (1996) Gilbert Harman and Judith Thomson. Moral Relativism and Moral Objectivity . Wiley-Blackwell, 1st edition, Jan 1996. ISBN 978-0631192114.
• Heidegger (1927) Martin Heidegger. Being and Time . 1927. Original title: Sein und Zeit. Translated by John Macquarrie and Edward Robinson (1962), Joan Stambaugh (1996).
• Hendrycks et al. (2021) Dan Hendrycks, Collin Burns, Steven Basart, Andrew Critch, Jerry Li, Dawn Song, and Jacob Steinhardt. Aligning AI with shared human values, 2021. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=dNy_RKzJacY .
• Hilliard et al. (2024) Airlie Hilliard, Cristian Muñoz, Zekun Wu, and Adriano Soares Koshiyama. Eliciting personality traits in large language models. CoRR , abs/2402.08341, 2024. doi: 10.48550/ARXIV.2402.08341 . URL https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2402.08341 .
• Hu (2023) Lily Hu. What is race? in algorithmic discrimination on the basis of race? Journal of Moral Philosophy , 21(1-2):1–26, 2023. doi: 10.1163/17455243-20234369 .
• Hullman et al. (2023) Jessica Hullman, Ari Holtzman, and Andrew Gelman. Artificial intelligence and aesthetic judgment, 2023. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2309.12338 .
• Hume (1739) David Hume. A Treatise of Human Nature . John Noon, London, 1739.
• Husserl (1931) Edmund Husserl. Cartesian Meditations: An Introduction to Phenomenology . Armand Collin, 1931.
• Huxley (1932) Aldous Huxley. Brave New World . Harper & Brothers, New York, 1932. ISBN 978-0-06-085052-4.
• Jamali et al. (2023) Mohsen Jamali, Ziv M. Williams, and Jing Cai. Unveiling theory of mind in large language models: A parallel to single neurons in the human brain, 2023. URL https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2309.01660 .
• Jenkins & Lin (2023) Ryan Jenkins and Patrick Lin. Ai-assisted authorship: How to assign credit in synthetic scholarship. Report, Ethics + Emerging Sciences Group, 2023.
• Jin et al. (2024) Mingyu Jin, Beichen Wang, Zhaoqian Xue, Suiyuan Zhu, Wenyue Hua, Hua Tang, Kai Mei, Mengnan Du, and Yongfeng Zhang. What if llms have different world views: Simulating alien civilizations with llm-based agents, 2024. URL https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2402.13184 .
• Kant (1781) Immanuel Kant. Critique of Pure Reason . 1781.
• Khraisha et al. (2024) Qusai Khraisha, Sophie Put, Johanna Kappenberg, Azza Warraitch, and Kristin Hadfield. Can large language models replace humans in systematic reviews? evaluating gpt-4’s efficacy in screening and extracting data from peer-reviewed and grey literature in multiple languages. Research Synthesis Methods , 15(4):616–626, July 2024. doi: 10.1002/jrsm.1715 . Epub 2024 Mar 14.
• Kierkegaard (1983) Søren Kierkegaard. The Sickness Unto Death: A Christian Psychological Exposition For Upbuilding And Awakening , volume 19 of Kierkegaard’s Writings . Princeton University Press, Nov 1983. ISBN 9780691020280.
• Kim et al. (2023) Jeongyeon Kim, Sangho Suh, Lydia B. Chilton, and Haijun Xia. Metaphorian: Leveraging large language models to support extended metaphor creation for science writing. In Designing Interactive Systems Conference (DIS ’23) , pp.  21, New York, NY, USA, 2023. ACM. doi: 10.1145/3563657.3595996 . URL https://doi.org/10.1145/3563657.3595996 .
• Kim et al. (2024) Jiho Kim, Ray C. Flanagan, Noelle E. Haviland, Zeai Sun, Souad N. Yakubu, Edom A. Maru, and Kenneth C. Arnold. Towards full authorship with AI: supporting revision with ai-generated views, 2024. URL https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3660/paper17.pdf .
• Kriplean et al. (2012) Travis Kriplean, Michael Toomim, Jonathan Morgan, Alan Borning, and Amy J. Ko. Is this what you meant? promoting listening on the web with reflect. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , CHI ’12, pp.  1559–1568, New York, NY, USA, 2012. Association for Computing Machinery. ISBN 9781450310154. doi: 10.1145/2207676.2208621 . URL https://doi-org.offcampus.lib.washington.edu/10.1145/2207676.2208621 .
• Kuhn & Hawkins (1963) Thomas S. Kuhn and David Hawkins. The structure of scientific revolutions. American Journal of Physics , 31:554–555, 1963.
• Lam et al. (2024) Michelle S. Lam, Janice Teoh, James A. Landay, Jeffrey Heer, and Michael S. Bernstein. Concept induction: Analyzing unstructured text with high-level concepts using lloom. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’24) . ACM, 2024. ISBN 979-8-4007-0330-0/24/05. doi: 10.1145/3613904.3642830 . URL https://doi.org/10.1145/3613904.3642830 .
• Langer (1997) Ellen J. Langer. The Power of Mindful Learning . Addison-Wesley, New York, 1997.
• Latour (1989) Bruno Latour. Science in action : how to follow scientists and engineers through society. Contemporary Sociology , 18:788, 1989.
• Levy (2003) Neil Levy. Analytic and continental philosophy: Explaining the differences. Metaphilosophy , 34(3):284–304, 2003. ISSN 00261068, 14679973. URL http://www.jstor.org/stable/24439383 .
• Liang et al. (2024) Weixin Liang, Yuhui Zhang, Hancheng Cao, Binglu Wang, Daisy Yi Ding, Xinyu Yang, Kailas Vodrahalli, Siyu He, Daniel Scott Smith, Yian Yin, Daniel A. McFarland, and James Zou. Can large language models provide useful feedback on research papers? a large-scale empirical analysis. NEJM AI , 1(8):AIoa2400196, 2024. doi: 10.1056/AIoa2400196 . URL https://ai.nejm.org/doi/abs/10.1056/AIoa2400196 .
• Liao & Wang (2022) Jingxian Liao and Hao-Chuan Wang. Nudge for reflective mind: Understanding how accessing peer concept mapping and commenting affects reflection of high-stakes information. In Extended Abstracts of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , CHI EA ’22, New York, NY, USA, 2022. Association for Computing Machinery. ISBN 9781450391566. doi: 10.1145/3491101.3519815 . URL https://doi.org/10.1145/3491101.3519815 .
• Lin et al. (2024) Susan Lin, Jeremy Warner, J.D. Zamfirescu-Pereira, Matthew G Lee, Sauhard Jain, Shanqing Cai, Piyawat Lertvittayakumjorn, Michael Xuelin Huang, Shumin Zhai, Bjoern Hartmann, and Can Liu. Rambler: Supporting writing with speech via llm-assisted gist manipulation. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , CHI ’24, New York, NY, USA, 2024. Association for Computing Machinery. ISBN 9798400703300. doi: 10.1145/3613904.3642217 . URL https://doi.org/10.1145/3613904.3642217 .
• Liu et al. (2023) Vivian Liu, Jo Vermeulen, George Fitzmaurice, and Justin Matejka. 3dall-e: Integrating text-to-image ai in 3d design workflows. In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference , DIS ’23, pp.  1955–1977, New York, NY, USA, 2023. Association for Computing Machinery. ISBN 9781450398930. doi: 10.1145/3563657.3596098 . URL https://doi.org/10.1145/3563657.3596098 .
• Liu et al. (2024) Yiren Liu, Si Chen, Haocong Cheng, Mengxia Yu, Xiao Ran, Andrew Mo, Yiliu Tang, and Yun Huang. How ai processing delays foster creativity: Exploring research question co-creation with an llm-based agent. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’24) , pp.  25, New York, NY, USA, 2024. ACM. doi: 10.1145/3613904.3642698 . URL https://doi.org/10.1145/3613904.3642698 .
• Lu et al. (2024) Yuwen Lu, Ziang Tong, Qinyi Zhao, Yewon Oh, Bryan Wang, and Toby Jia-Jun Li. Flowy: Supporting ux design decisions through ai-driven pattern annotation in multi-screen user flows, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.16177 .
• Ma et al. (2024) Jenny Ma, Karthik Sreedhar, Vivian Liu, Sitong Wang, Pedro Alejandro Perez, and Lydia B. Chilton. Didup: Dynamic iterative development for ui prototyping, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.08474 .
• Ma et al. (2023) Kevin Ma, Daniele Grandi, Christopher McComb, and Kosa Goucher-Lambert. Conceptual design generation using large language models, 2023. URL https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2306.01779 .
• McPeck (1990) John E. McPeck. Teaching Critical Thinking: Dialogue and Dialectic . Routledge, 1990. ISBN 0415902258, 9780415902250.
• McPeck (2016) John E. McPeck. Critical thinking and education . Routledge, 2016.
• Mendelssohn (1783) Moses Mendelssohn. Jerusalem, or on Religious Power and Judaism . Friedrich Maurer, Berlin, 1783.
• Messeri & Crockett (2024) Lisa Messeri and M. J. Crockett. Artificial intelligence and illusions of understanding in scientific research. Nature , 627(8002):49–58, March 1 2024. doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07146-0 . URL https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-07146-0 .
• Meyer et al. (2024) Jennifer Meyer, Thorben Jansen, Ronja Schiller, Lucas W. Liebenow, Marlene Steinbach, Andrea Horbach, and Johanna Fleckenstein. Using llms to bring evidence-based feedback into the classroom: Ai-generated feedback increases secondary students’ text revision, motivation, and positive emotions. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence , 6:100199, 2024. ISSN 2666-920X. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2023.100199 . URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666920X23000784 .
• Mirowski et al. (2023) Piotr Mirowski, Kory W. Mathewson, Jaylen Pittman, and Richard Evans. Co-writing screenplays and theatre scripts with language models: Evaluation by industry professionals. pp.  355:1–355:34, 2023. doi: 10.1145/3544548.3581225 . URL https://doi.org/10.1145/3544548.3581225 .
• Mizrahi & Dickinson (2021) Moti Mizrahi and Mike Dickinson. The analytic-continental divide in philosophical practice: An empirical study. Metaphilosophy , 52(5):668–680, 2021. doi: 10.1111/meta.12519 .
• Morris (2023) Meredith Ringel Morris. Scientists’ perspectives on the potential for generative ai in their fields, 2023. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2304.01420 .
• Mukherjee et al. (2023) Anwesha Mukherjee, Vagner Figuerêdo de Santana, and Alexis T. Baria. Impactbot: Chatbot leveraging language models to automate feedback and promote critical thinking around impact statements. In Albrecht Schmidt, Kaisa Väänänen, Tesh Goyal, Per Ola Kristensson, and Anicia Peters (eds.), Extended Abstracts of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI EA 2023, Hamburg, Germany, April 23-28, 2023 , pp.  388:1–388:8. ACM, 2023. doi: 10.1145/3544549.3573844 . URL https://doi.org/10.1145/3544549.3573844 .
• Mysore et al. (2023) Sheshera Mysore, Zhuoran Lu, Mengting Wan, Longqi Yang, Steve Menezes, Tina Baghaee, Emmanuel Barajas Gonzalez, Jennifer Neville, and Tara Safavi. PEARL: personalizing large language model writing assistants with generation-calibrated retrievers. CoRR , abs/2311.09180, 2023. doi: 10.48550/ARXIV.2311.09180 . URL https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2311.09180 .
• Nietzsche (1892) Friedrich Nietzsche. Also sprach Zarathustra: Ein Buch für Alle und Keinen . Ernst Schmeitzner, Germany, 1892. Published in parts between 1883 and 1892.
• Ouyang et al. (2022) Long Ouyang, Jeffrey Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll L. Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, John Schulman, Jacob Hilton, Fraser Kelton, Luke Miller, Maddie Simens, Amanda Askell, Peter Welinder, Paul F. Christiano, Jan Leike, and Ryan Lowe. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. In Sanmi Koyejo, S. Mohamed, A. Agarwal, Danielle Belgrave, K. Cho, and A. Oh (eds.), Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2022, NeurIPS 2022, New Orleans, LA, USA, November 28 - December 9, 2022 , 2022. URL http://papers.nips.cc/paper_files/paper/2022/hash/b1efde53be364a73914f58805a001731-Abstract-Conference.html .
• Park & Kulkarni (2023) Soya Park and Chinmay Kulkarni. Thinking assistants: Llm-based conversational assistants that help users think by asking rather than answering. CoRR , abs/2312.06024, 2023. doi: 10.48550/ARXIV.2312.06024 . URL https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2312.06024 .
• Pasquinelli et al. (2021) Elena Pasquinelli, Mathieu Farina, Audrey Bedel, and Roberto Casati. Naturalizing critical thinking: consequences for education, blueprint for future research in cognitive science. Mind, Brain, and Education , 15(2):168–176, 2021.
• Pithers & Soden (2000) Robert T Pithers and Rebecca Soden. Critical thinking in education: A review. Educational research , 42(3):237–249, 2000.
• Plato (369BCE) Plato. Theaetetus . 369BCE.
• Plato (370BCE) Plato. Phaedrus . 370BCE.
• Plato (380 BC) Plato. The Republic . 380 BC.
• Pock et al. (2023) Mark Pock, Andre Ye, and Jared Moore. Llms grasp morality in concept, 2023. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.02294 .
• Popper (2002) Karl Popper. The Logic of Scientific Discovery . Routledge Classics, 2nd edition, Feb 2002. ISBN 978-0415278447.
• Radensky et al. (2024) Marissa Radensky, Daniel S. Weld, Joseph Chee Chang, Pao Siangliulue, and Jonathan Bragg. Let’s get to the point: Llm-supported planning, drafting, and revising of research-paper blog posts, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.10370 .
• Raths et al. (1966) LE Raths, S Wasserman, A Jonas, and A Rothstein. Teaching for critical thinking: Theory and application. Columbus, OH: Charles-Merrill , 1966.
• Rawls (1971) John Rawls. A Theory of Justice: Original Edition . Harvard University Press, 1971. ISBN 9780674880108. URL http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctvjf9z6v .
• Rayan et al. (2024) Jude Rayan, Dhruv Kanetkar, Nicole Gong, Yuewen Yang, Srishti Palani, Haijun Xia, and Steven P. Dow. Exploring the potential for generative ai-based conversational cues for real-time collaborative ideation. In Creativity and Cognition (C&C ’24) , pp.  15, New York, NY, USA, June 23–26 2024. ACM. doi: 10.1145/3635636.3656184 .
• Reif (2008) Frederick Reif. Applying cognitive science to education: Thinking and learning in scientific and other complex domains . MIT press, 2008.
• Ricoeur (1981) Paul Ricoeur. Hermeneutics and the Human Sciences: Essays on Language, Action and Interpretation . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1981. ISBN 0521280028.
• Rodman (2023) Emma Rodman. On political theory and large language models. Political Theory , 2023. doi: 10.1177/0090591723120082 . URL https://doi.org/10.1177/0090591723120082 .
• Rozière et al. (2023) Baptiste Rozière, Jonas Gehring, Fabian Gloeckle, Sten Sootla, Itai Gat, Xiaoqing Ellen Tan, Yossi Adi, Jingyu Liu, Tal Remez, Jérémy Rapin, Artyom Kozhevnikov, Ivan Evtimov, Joanna Bitton, Manish Bhatt, Cristian Canton-Ferrer, Aaron Grattafiori, Wenhan Xiong, Alexandre Défossez, Jade Copet, Faisal Azhar, Hugo Touvron, Louis Martin, Nicolas Usunier, Thomas Scialom, and Gabriel Synnaeve. Code llama: Open foundation models for code. CoRR , abs/2308.12950, 2023. doi: 10.48550/ARXIV.2308.12950 . URL https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2308.12950 .
• Sartre (1943) Jean-Paul Sartre. Being and Nothingness: An Essay on Phenomenological Ontology . Éditions Gallimard, 1943.
• Scherrer et al. (2023) Nino Scherrer, Claudia Shi, Amir Feder, and David M. Blei. Evaluating the moral beliefs encoded in llms. In Alice Oh, Tristan Naumann, Amir Globerson, Kate Saenko, Moritz Hardt, and Sergey Levine (eds.), Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2023, NeurIPS 2023, New Orleans, LA, USA, December 10 - 16, 2023 , 2023. URL http://papers.nips.cc/paper_files/paper/2023/hash/a2cf225ba392627529efef14dc857e22-Abstract-Conference.html .
• Schmitt & Buschek (2021) Oliver Schmitt and Daniel Buschek. Characterchat: Supporting the creation of fictional characters through conversation and progressive manifestation with a chatbot. In Corina Sas, Neil A. M. Maiden, Brian P. Bailey, Celine Latulipe, and Ellen Yi-Luen Do (eds.), Proceedings of the 13th ACM SIGCHI Conference on Creativity and Cognition, C&C 2021, Virtual Event / Venice, Italy, June 22-23, 2021 , pp.  7:1–7:10. ACM, 2021. doi: 10.1145/3450741.3465253 . URL https://doi.org/10.1145/3450741.3465253 .
• Schwitzgebel et al. (2023) Eric Schwitzgebel, David Schwitzgebel, and Anna Strasser. Creating a large language model of a philosopher. CoRR , abs/2302.01339, 2023. doi: 10.48550/ARXIV.2302.01339 . URL https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2302.01339 .
• Schön (1987) Donald A. Schön. Educating the Reflective Practitioner: Toward a New Design for Teaching and Learning in the Professions . Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, 1987. ISBN 978-1555420253.
• Shaer et al. (2024) Orit Shaer, Angelora Cooper, Osnat Mokryn, Andrew L Kun, and Hagit Ben Shoshan. Ai-augmented brainwriting: Investigating the use of llms in group ideation. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , CHI ’24, New York, NY, USA, 2024. Association for Computing Machinery. ISBN 9798400703300. doi: 10.1145/3613904.3642414 . URL https://doi.org/10.1145/3613904.3642414 .
• Shin (2022) Donghee Shin. The perception of humanness in conversational journalism: An algorithmic information-processing perspective. New Media & Society , 24(12):2680–2704, 2022. doi: 10.1177/1461444821993801 . URL https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444821993801 .
• Shneiderman (2000) Ben Shneiderman. Creating creativity: user interfaces for supporting innovation. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI) , 7(1):114–138, 2000.
• Shu et al. (2023) Lei Shu, Liangchen Luo, Jayakumar Hoskere, Yun Zhu, Yinxiao Liu, Simon Tong, Jindong Chen, and Lei Meng. Rewritelm: An instruction-tuned large language model for text rewriting, 2023.
• Simon et al. (2024) J. Simon, G. Rieder, and J. Branford. The philosophy and ethics of ai: Conceptual, empirical, and technological investigations into values. DISO , 3(10), 2024. doi: 10.1007/s44206-024-00094-2 . URL https://doi.org/10.1007/s44206-024-00094-2 .
• Singer (1972) Peter Singer. Famine, affluence, and morality. Philosophy and Public Affairs , 1(3):229–243, 1972. ISSN 00483915, 10884963. URL http://www.jstor.org/stable/2265052 .
• Sorensen et al. (2024) Taylor Sorensen, Jared Moore, Jillian Fisher, Mitchell L. Gordon, Niloofar Mireshghallah, Christopher Michael Rytting, Andre Ye, Liwei Jiang, Ximing Lu, Nouha Dziri, Tim Althoff, and Yejin Choi. A roadmap to pluralistic alignment, 2024. URL https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2402.05070 .
• Spinoza (1677) Baruch Spinoza. Ethics, Demonstrated in Geometrical Order . Posthumous, 1677.
• Springer (2024) Springer. Artificial intelligence (ai) - editorial policies. https://www.springer.com/gp/editorial-policies/artificial-intelligence--ai-/25428500 , 2024. Accessed: 2024-07-29.
• Strachan et al. (2024) James W. A. Strachan, Dalila Albergo, Giulia Borghini, Oriana Pansardi, Eugenio Scaliti, Saurabh Gupta, Krati Saxena, Alessandro Rufo, Stefano Panzeri, Guido Manzi, Michael S. A. Graziano, and Cristina Becchio. Testing theory of mind in large language models and humans. Nature Human Behaviour , 8(7):1285–1295, 2024. doi: 10.1038/s41562-024-01882-z . URL https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-024-01882-z .
• Sun et al. (2017) Na Sun, Chien Wen (Tina) Yuan, Mary Beth Rosson, Yu Wu, and Jack M. Carroll. Critical thinking in collaboration: Talk less, perceive more. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems , CHI EA ’17, pp.  2944–2950, New York, NY, USA, 2017. Association for Computing Machinery. ISBN 9781450346566. doi: 10.1145/3027063.3053250 . URL https://doi-org.offcampus.lib.washington.edu/10.1145/3027063.3053250 .
• Tanprasert et al. (2024) Thitaree Tanprasert, Sidney S Fels, Luanne Sinnamon, and Dongwook Yoon. Debate chatbots to facilitate critical thinking on youtube: Social identity and conversational style make a difference. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , CHI ’24, New York, NY, USA, 2024. Association for Computing Machinery. ISBN 9798400703300. doi: 10.1145/3613904.3642513 . URL https://doi.org/10.1145/3613904.3642513 .
• Tanwar et al. (2024) Henansh Tanwar, Kunal Shrivastva, Rahul Singh, and Dhruv Kumar. Opinebot: Class feedback reimagined using a conversational LLM. CoRR , abs/2401.15589, 2024. doi: 10.48550/ARXIV.2401.15589 . URL https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2401.15589 .
• Thomas (2006) David R. Thomas. A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data. American Journal of Evaluation , 27(2):237–246, 2006. doi: 10.1177/1098214005283748 .
• Thomson (2019) Iain D. Thomson. Rethinking the Analytic/Continental Divide , pp.  569–589. Cambridge University Press, 2019.
• Trouillot (1995) Michel-Rolph Trouillot. Silencing the Past: Power and the Production of History . Beacon Press books. Beacon Press, 1995. ISBN 9780807043110.
• Van Dinter et al. (2021) Raymon Van Dinter, Bedir Tekinerdogan, and Cagatay Catal. Automation of systematic literature reviews: A systematic literature review. Information and Software Technology , 136:106589, 2021.
• Wagner et al. (2022) Gerit Wagner, Roman Lukyanenko, and Guy Paré. Artificial intelligence and the conduct of literature reviews. Journal of Information Technology , 37(2):209–226, 2022.
• Wang et al. (2023a) Hanchen Wang, Tianfan Fu, Yuanqi Du, Wenhao Gao, Kexin Huang, Ziming Liu, Payal Chandak, Shengchao Liu, Peter Van Katwyk, Andreea Deac, Anima Anandkumar, Karianne Bergen, Carla P. Gomes, Shirley Ho, Pushmeet Kohli, Joan Lasenby, Jure Leskovec, Tie-Yan Liu, Arjun Manrai, Debora Marks, Bharath Ramsundar, Le Song, Jimeng Sun, Jian Tang, Petar Veličković, Max Welling, Linfeng Zhang, Connor W. Coley, Yoshua Bengio, and Marinka Zitnik. Scientific discovery in the age of artificial intelligence. Nature , 620(7972):47–60, August 1 2023a. doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06221-2 . URL https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06221-2 .
• Wang & Tanes-Ehle (2022) Jinping Wang and Zeynep Tanes-Ehle. Examining the effects of conversational chatbots on changing conspiracy beliefs about science: The paradox of interactivity. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media , 67(1):68–89, 2022. doi: 10.1080/08838151.2022.2153842 . URL https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2022.2153842 .
• Wang et al. (2023b) Weizhi Wang, Li Dong, Hao Cheng, Xiaodong Liu, Xifeng Yan, Jianfeng Gao, and Furu Wei. Augmenting language models with long-term memory. In Alice Oh, Tristan Naumann, Amir Globerson, Kate Saenko, Moritz Hardt, and Sergey Levine (eds.), Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2023, NeurIPS 2023, New Orleans, LA, USA, December 10 - 16, 2023 , 2023b. URL http://papers.nips.cc/paper_files/paper/2023/hash/ebd82705f44793b6f9ade5a669d0f0bf-Abstract-Conference.html .
• White (1973) Hayden White. Metahistory: The Historical Imagination in Nineteenth-century Europe . Johns Hopkins University, 1973.
• Xu et al. (2024) Xiaotong (Tone) Xu, Jiayu Yin, Catherine Gu, Jenny Mar, Sydney Zhang, Jane L. E, and Steven P. Dow. Jamplate: Exploring llm-enhanced templates for idea reflection. In Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces , IUI ’24, pp.  907–921, New York, NY, USA, 2024. Association for Computing Machinery. ISBN 9798400705083. doi: 10.1145/3640543.3645196 . URL https://doi.org/10.1145/3640543.3645196 .
• Yamamoto & Yamamoto (2018) Yusuke Yamamoto and Takehiro Yamamoto. Query priming for promoting critical thinking in web search. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Human Information Interaction & Retrieval , CHIIR ’18, pp.  12–21, New York, NY, USA, 2018. Association for Computing Machinery. ISBN 9781450349253. doi: 10.1145/3176349.3176377 . URL https://doi.org/10.1145/3176349.3176377 .
• Yuan et al. (2022) Ann Yuan, Andy Coenen, Emily Reif, and Daphne Ippolito. Wordcraft: Story writing with large language models. In Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces , IUI ’22, pp.  841–852, New York, NY, USA, 2022. Association for Computing Machinery. ISBN 9781450391443. doi: 10.1145/3490099.3511105 . URL https://doi.org/10.1145/3490099.3511105 .
• Zarouali et al. (2021) Brahim Zarouali, Mykola Makhortykh, Mariella Bastian, and Theo Araujo. Overcoming polarization with chatbot news? investigating the impact of news content containing opposing views on agreement and credibility. European Journal of Communication , 36(1):53–68, 2021. doi: 10.1177/0267323120940908 . URL https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323120940908 .
• Zhao (2022) Xin Zhao. Leveraging artificial intelligence (ai) technology for english writing: Introducing wordtune as a digital writing assistant for efl writers. RELC Journal , 54:890 – 894, 2022.
• Zhao et al. (2024) Yukun Zhao, Lingyong Yan, Weiwei Sun, Guoliang Xing, Shuaiqiang Wang, Chong Meng, Zhicong Cheng, Zhaochun Ren, and Dawei Yin. Improving the robustness of large language models via consistency alignment. In Nicoletta Calzolari, Min-Yen Kan, Véronique Hoste, Alessandro Lenci, Sakriani Sakti, and Nianwen Xue (eds.), Proceedings of the 2024 Joint International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Language Resources and Evaluation, LREC/COLING 2024, 20-25 May, 2024, Torino, Italy , pp.  8931–8941. ELRA and ICCL, 2024. URL https://aclanthology.org/2024.lrec-main.782 .
• Ziems et al. (2023) Caleb Ziems, Jane Dwivedi-Yu, Yi-Chia Wang, Alon Y. Halevy, and Diyi Yang. Normbank: A knowledge bank of situational social norms. In Anna Rogers, Jordan L. Boyd-Graber, and Naoaki Okazaki (eds.), Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), ACL 2023, Toronto, Canada, July 9-14, 2023 , pp.  7756–7776. Association for Computational Linguistics, 2023. doi: 10.18653/V1/2023.ACL-LONG.429 . URL https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.acl-long.429 .

Appendix A Interviewee Information Sheet

Table  1 provides high-level information about each interviewee which may be relevant to interpreting and contextualizing their views. The General Interest(s) feature describes the broad fields that the interviewees work in. The Notable Specific Interest(s) feature describes any specific topics in the field(s) mentioned in the General Interest(s) feature that the interviewees focus their work on. This feature is not exclusive, meaning that interviewees may also work on other topics outside of the specific interests. If the value for this feature is blank, then the interviewee’s work is sufficiently characterized by the value in the General Interest(s) feature. The Experience with LMs feature describes three levels of experience with using LMs: little to none, limited, and extensive. If interviewees have either limited or extensive experience with using LMs, the Uses of LMs feature describes their primary use: for teaching (e.g., using LMs to teach material, trying to understand features of LM-generated student submissions), for personal use (e.g., to improve productivity, for entertainment), for exploration (i.e., playing around with the LM out of curiosity to understand the technology better), and for research (i.e., their research is on LMs). Note that the following interviewees have published at least one article on some aspect of AI: (P5, P6, P13, P14) .

Appendix B Interview Questions and Guidelines

Meta-philosophy

What is philosophy? Why do you go about doing philosophy? What aims do you have?

What drives the ‘doing’ of philosophy? What is the role of personal motivations, subjective experience, and aesthetic judgements?

Who or what can ‘do’ philosophy? For instance, can LLMs ‘do’ philosophy?

What makes doing philosophy ‘difficult’ / nontrivial?

How does philosophy distinguish its products from those of other disciplines?

The philosophical process

How do you go from no idea to a spark of an idea / an unrefined idea?

How do you develop and refine philosophical ideas? What moves have to happen?

How mechanical / creative is the process of doing philosophy?

What is the relationship between texts / textual methods and philosophy? Does philosophizing, to some extent, operate ‘above’ language in ideas / thoughts?

What is the role of conversation in the doing of philosophy? What are some of its challenges?

What makes for a good interlocutor, and what makes for a good conversation?

Language Models for philosophy

What roles can language models play in the development of philosophy?

What do language models need to be better in the development of philosophy?

What are some of the opportunities and strengths for language models in philosophy?

What are some of the risks and weaknesses for language models in philosophy?

Would you use language models in intellectually substantive ways currently? What about in the future, with plausible improvements?

Home » Articles » Parenting » Kids » 5 Ways to Improve Critical Thinking Skills

5 Ways to Improve Critical Thinking Skills

Several months ago, my family and I stayed in a yurt while on vacation. If you don’t know what that is, imagine a cross between a large hotel room and a tent. In other words, it was glorified camping. It was fun, or at least interesting. The yurt was on property owned by a college professor, who we had the pleasure to talk to each day. When we asked her about her students, she said over the last couple of decades, students have lost critical thinking skills.

But critical thinking skills are essential for kids to thrive and to make the world a better place. We have to instill them in our kids. Something a friend of mine uses for this is the Go Bible . It’s easy to read with lots of applications and poses questions to kids about everyday scenarios. Great exercises and tools like that can help kids formulate their thoughts and make better decisions. Here are 5 more ways to improve critical thinking skills.

1. Encourage curiosity.

Encourage your kids to explore and learn new things . It will teach them to have an open mind and gather facts before arriving at a conclusion. According to research by Harvard Business Review, curiosity “encourages [people] to put themselves in one another’s shoes and take an interest in one another’s ideas rather than focus only on their own perspective.”

2. Carve out time for free play.

In his book The Anxious Generation , Jonathan Haidt argues that giving kids more free play helps kids learn to resolve problems, think creatively, and even reduce bad behavior. Free play has disappeared over the last few decades, and our kids’ ability to self direct and solve relational problems has taken a hit. So, take them to a park, back away, and let them play.

3. Ask open ended questions.

Asking your kids open ended questions helps their problem-solving and encourages their vocabulary as they formulate words. Questions like these challenge kids and give them an open road to produce their own original thoughts. If you have trouble thinking of questions, find tools that can give you ideas, like the Go Bible that my friend uses.

4. Play strategy games.

My dad taught me to play chess when I was six. It trained me to think a couple moves ahead and about the consequences of my actions. Playing strategy games with your kids is a great way to sharpen your kids’ brains to problem-solve, evaluate strengths and weaknesses, and evaluate cause and effect.

5. Let them solve their own problems.

It’s hard to watch our kids experience pain. If you are like me, it gives you a terrible bout of stress. That’s probably why I swoop in and solve the problem for them—it gives me relief. But that robs them of an opportunity to grow stronger and learn critical thinking skills. I love the scene in Finding Nemo where the dad turtle lets his son struggle to figure out how to get back to him after getting momentarily separated. I need to be more like that. When your kids run into a problem, let them figure it out, unless it’s an emergency.

Sound off: What are some other things we can do to improve our kids’ critical thinking skills?

Huddle Up Question

Huddle up with your kids and ask, “What’s one thing you’d like to learn more about?”

More Resources

5 Ways to Combat Kids’ Shortening Attention Spans

The Worst Places Teens Go to Find Answers to Life

3 Skills Kids Gain When They Take Risks

QUICK LINKS

• Contributors
• Fostering and Adoption

5509 W. Gray Street, Suite 100 Tampa, FL 33609 (813) 222-8300

EMAIL SIGN UP

Copyright © 2024 Family First, INC. All Rights Reserved. Site Design by Design Extensions

Privacy Policy | Terms of Use

• Work & Careers
• Life & Arts

Letter: Critical thinking’s antidote to Orwellian newspeak

To read this article for free, register now.

Once registered, you can: • Read free articles • Get our Editor's Digest and other newsletters • Follow topics and set up personalised events • Access Alphaville: our popular markets and finance blog

Explore more offers.

Then $75 per month. Complete digital access to quality FT journalism. Cancel anytime during your trial.

FT Digital Edition

Today's FT newspaper for easy reading on any device. This does not include ft.com or FT App access.

• Global news & analysis
• Expert opinion

Standard Digital

Essential digital access to quality FT journalism on any device. Pay a year upfront and save 20%.

• FT App on Android & iOS
• FT Edit app
• FirstFT: the day's biggest stories
• 20+ curated newsletters
• Follow topics & set alerts with myFT
• FT Videos & Podcasts

Terms & Conditions apply

Explore our full range of subscriptions.

Why the ft.

See why over a million readers pay to read the Financial Times.

More From Forbes

Curiosity unleashed: the missing ingredient in business education.

• Share to Facebook
• Share to Twitter
• Share to Linkedin

Curious Dog

Curiosity lies at the heart of all meaningful learning, particularly in business education. Educators witness firsthand how curiosity drives not only academic success but also the capacity to thrive in the constantly evolving world of business. Dr. Diane Hamilton , in her newly released book Curiosity Unleashed , explores the critical role that curiosity plays in shaping future business leaders.

Dr. Hamilton believes that in higher education, fostering curiosity is not just about encouraging students to ask questions. It is about empowering young minds to look beyond the obvious and confront the obstacles that hold organizations back. These insights resonate deeply in a world where the status quo often suppresses innovation. For leaders to emerge, they must possess the ability to question, explore, and challenge conventional thinking.

When engaging with students on the importance of curiosity, the focus is on asking the right questions—those that lead to deeper understanding and informed decision-making. Curiosity is not simply about gathering information; it is about delving into issues, examining them from various angles, and remaining open to new perspectives. This approach to thinking is directly tied to critical thinking, which Dr. Hamilton describes as a key benefit of cultivating curiosity in students. Ultimately, curiosity drives critical thinking and equips students to challenge the assumptions that often stifle innovation.

The connection between curiosity and critical thinking is clear. Critical thinking involves assessing situations, identifying opportunities, and solving problems in creative ways. These abilities are nurtured by a curious mindset. When students are curious, they become more engaged, which in turn fosters innovation. Dr. Hamilton discusses how business courses grounded in curiosity help students bridge the gap between theory and practice, enabling them to address real-world problems that organizations frequently struggle to solve.

In business education, fostering curiosity should be a top priority. Diane mentions that too often, the focus is placed on teaching the "what" and "how," while neglecting the importance of the "why." Students need to learn to question assumptions, remain open to new ideas, and explore possibilities beyond the obvious. This is not just about preparing them for exams; it is about equipping them to handle the complex challenges they will encounter in their careers. The true value of curiosity in the classroom lies in its ability to break down the barriers of fear and complacency, paving the way for bold, innovative thinking.

Best High-Yield Savings Accounts Of 2024

Best 5% interest savings accounts of 2024.

Obese Cat Series

To effectively cultivate curiosity, educators must be aware of the factors that inhibit it. Whether it is fear of failure, rigid thinking, or a lack of exposure to diverse ideas, these barriers can stifle the very curiosity that needs to be encouraged. Dr. Hamilton underscores the importance of creating environments where students feel safe to ask questions, make mistakes, and explore new ideas without fear of judgment. This kind of environment is essential for developing not only better students but also better leaders.

Curiosity in business education does more than enhance learning—it aligns with what organizations need most: critical thinkers who can break free from the status quo and drive meaningful change. Curiosity does not just improve the classroom experience; it cultivates the skills that are essential for success in the business world.

The value of curiosity in business education extends beyond the classroom. It is a lifelong skill that will benefit students in both their careers and personal lives. By fostering curiosity, educators are not only teaching students to think critically; they are also encouraging innovation, engagement, and success in whatever paths the students choose to pursue. This is the true value of curiosity, and it is why it should be at the center of everything done in business education.

• Editorial Standards
• Reprints & Permissions

Join The Conversation

One Community. Many Voices. Create a free account to share your thoughts. 

Forbes Community Guidelines

Our community is about connecting people through open and thoughtful conversations. We want our readers to share their views and exchange ideas and facts in a safe space.

In order to do so, please follow the posting rules in our site's  Terms of Service.   We've summarized some of those key rules below. Simply put, keep it civil.

Your post will be rejected if we notice that it seems to contain:

• False or intentionally out-of-context or misleading information
• Insults, profanity, incoherent, obscene or inflammatory language or threats of any kind
• Attacks on the identity of other commenters or the article's author
• Content that otherwise violates our site's  terms.

User accounts will be blocked if we notice or believe that users are engaged in:

• Continuous attempts to re-post comments that have been previously moderated/rejected
• Racist, sexist, homophobic or other discriminatory comments
• Attempts or tactics that put the site security at risk
• Actions that otherwise violate our site's  terms.

So, how can you be a power user?

• Stay on topic and share your insights
• Feel free to be clear and thoughtful to get your point across
• ‘Like’ or ‘Dislike’ to show your point of view.
• Protect your community.
• Use the report tool to alert us when someone breaks the rules.

Thanks for reading our community guidelines. Please read the full list of posting rules found in our site's  Terms of Service.

• Become a Member
• Artificial Intelligence
• Computational Thinking
• Digital Citizenship
• Edtech Selection
• Global Collaborations
• STEAM in Education
• Teacher Preparation
• ISTE Certification
• School Partners
• Career Development
• ISTELive 24
• Solutions Summit
• Leadership Exchange
• 2024 ASCD Leadership Summit
• 2025 ASCD Annual Conference
• Edtech Product Database
• Solutions Network
• Sponsorship & Advertising
• Sponsorship & Advertising
• Learning Library

The Hottest Edtech Topics in 2024

• Professional Development & Well-Being

Each year, we examine the most popular topics at ISTELive to gauge the hottest trends in edtech. It’s interesting and instructive to see how the topics shift each year to reflect the changing times. If you enjoy comparing yearly trends, you can look at our previous lists:

Hottest Edtech Topics 2021

Hottest Edtech Topics 2022

Hottest Edtech Topics 2023

This year, we looked at the number of ISTELive24 sessions tagged with a particular topic, such as equity and inclusion or AR/VR/XR. Many sessions have multiple topics, so there is some overlap between the various categories. We narrowed the topic list down to those that had at least 50 associated sessions, but our hottest topic of the year had a whopping 258 sessions.

Based on this analysis, here are the 2024 hottest edtech trends, in order from least to most popular:

8. Project-based learning

It’s no surprise that PBL continues to be a hot topic for educators, especially those focused on edtech. Tech tools excel at creating immersive experiences for students and allowing them to express their learning outcomes in personal and innovative ways. And, as the technology continues to evolve, the possibilities for curriculum enhancements continue to grow.

With PBL, teachers are engaging students by challenging them to find solutions to real-world problems, encouraging them to work together to solve puzzles and virtual escape rooms , and offering makerspace-style experiences that provide tools for innovation and the chance to build marketable skills.

7. Computer science and computational thinking

The computer science and computational thinking category has made our trend list for the past few years, and we continue to see educators weaving computer science skills into their lessons across subject matter in increasingly creative ways. There’s still a lot of energy dedicated to coding, robotics, and circuits, but now computer science learning is blended with science, history, storytelling projects, and more.

6. Augmented, virtual and extended reality (AR/VR/XR)

Augmented, virtual, and extended realities topped our list last year, but dropped to sixth place at ISTELive24. It was bumped from the top five by a new topic: Innovative Learning Environments. While AR/VR/XR is a subset of this new realm, it’s not surprising that as we move further from the online classrooms of the COVID-19 pandemic, educators are looking for more creative in-person educational opportunities. Still, the use of AR/VR/XR can offer students opportunities to engage in virtual experiences, such as field trips , science experiments, and even historical reenactments that would otherwise be difficult or impossible to access.

5. Innovative learning environments

The ISTELive24 sessions focused on innovative learning environments encompassed both in-person and online learning. They explored neighborhood and community projects, nature walks and gardening, and visits to libraries and maker spaces. They also touched on using robots, deep-diving with open-world gaming like Minecraft, and virtual field trips. Whether in-person or virtual, the trend highlights an interest in engaging students beyond the four walls of classrooms, whether in real-world scenarios or via the use of virtual reality. When paired with the continued focus on project-based learning, the opportunities for creating immersive learning experiences are endless.

4. Equity and inclusion

While social-emotional learning didn’t make the trending list for 2024, equity and inclusion continue to be among the top focus areas in edtech. Engaging and nurturing students across cultures, abilities, learning styles, interests, and identities requires conscious and ongoing effort. In particular, artificial intelligence tools, which are becoming ubiquitous, offer both assistance (such as individualized lesson plans and assessments) and challenges (such as inherent biases in underlying models). With or without AI, educators are still prioritizing efforts to make learning accessible to all students, regardless of their ability or background. This includes girls in STEM initiatives , the use of technology for adaptive and accessible learning, and utilizing technology to support new ELL students.

3. Creativity and curation tools

As the focus continues on project-based learning, authentic assessments, and equity and inclusion, there is an ongoing demand for tools that help students express themselves and share what they’ve learned, which can be a key part of applying or transferring learning. For those educators who don’t have the time or desire to experiment, there are always other teachers who are happy to share their suggestions .

2. Online tools, apps, and resources

This topic is a broad one and has some significant overlap with our number three entry, but it demonstrates the interest educators continue to have in sharing resources and tools. Not only is the landscape of edtech changing at a rapid rate, but teachers and administrators are constantly finding creative ways to utilize available tech resources, whether or not they were intended for educational use. This never-ending stream of new tools may feel overwhelming, but there’s no need to go it alone. Educators can team up to divide and conquer whatever new technology pops up throughout the year.

1. Artificial intelligence

Perhaps not surprisingly, AI rose from second on the list last year to number one this year. The ISTELive24 sessions tagged as AI-related outpaced the next most popular topic by 3 to 1, solidifying its spot as the hottest edtech trend of 2024. But, as we know, AI considerations in education are broad, encompassing everything from ethics and DEI to authentic assessments and customized lesson plans. The addition of AI tools such as transcription, custom chatbots/interactive lessons, text summaries and automated feedback are  changing the face of education and, in some cases, the very nature of roles teachers play and how students learn. Understanding how AI can be used thoughtfully and safely to enhance learning and empower teachers and students alike will obviously be a key area of focus for schools in the year–and years–ahead. And it’s one where ISTE is dedicated to providing robust and nuanced support .

We’re excited to see what trends will develop over the next year. What interesting things are happening in your classroom, school, or community? We hope you’ll bring your expertise and enthusiasm to ISTELive25 .

Image: Shutterstock. 

• artificial intelligence

You're reading a free article with opinions that may differ from The Motley Fool's Premium Investing Services. Become a Motley Fool member today to get instant access to our top analyst recommendations, in-depth research, investing resources, and more. Learn More

Do You Qualify for Spousal Social Security Benefits? 3 Things to Know Before Applying

• Spouses and ex-spouses generally must meet a length-of-marriage requirement before they become eligible for Social Security.
• Your maximum spousal benefit is half your partner's benefit at their full retirement age (FRA).
• The Social Security Administration automatically gives you the larger of your own retirement benefit or your spousal benefit.
• Motley Fool Issues Rare “All In” Buy Alert

Spousal Social Security benefits could be a critical source of retirement income for you, but they're a little more complicated than you might expect.

Spousal Social Security benefits sound pretty straightforward: You marry a qualifying worker, sign up for benefits, and receive monthly checks. This is all true, but it leaves out a few important details that retired couples and those nearing retirement need to know.

Here are three key rules to keep in mind when planning your retirement budget and applying for spousal Social Security benefits.

Image source: Getty Images.

1. There's a length of marriage requirement

You must be married to your spouse for at least one year before you're eligible for spousal Social Security benefits on their work record. There's an exception to this rule if you qualified for Social Security benefits in the month before the month you got married, or if you're the parent of your spouse's child. Current spouses cannot apply for spousal benefits until their partner is claiming Social Security retirement checks.

Ex-spouses can also qualify for spousal benefits, but they have slightly different requirements. Their marriage to the qualifying worker must have lasted for at least 10 years, unless they are caring for the worker's child who is under 16 or disabled. If there's no qualifying child and the worker isn't claiming Social Security themselves yet, the ex-spouse must wait until they've been divorced for at least two years before applying. Remarriage will render you ineligible to claim on your ex's work record.

2. The most you'll get is half your partner's benefit at their full retirement age (FRA)

The Social Security Administration bases your spousal benefit on the benefit your partner is eligible for at their full retirement age (FRA) . This is 66 to 67, depending on their birth year. They may choose to apply earlier than this, but their decision won't affect the size of your benefit.

When you apply does affect your checks, though. If you wait until your FRA, you'll qualify for your maximum spousal benefit -- one-half of your partner's benefit at their FRA. So if your partner qualifies for $2,000 per month at their FRA, the most you'll get is $1,000 per month.

But you may get less if you apply early. The government reduces your benefit by 25/36 of 1% per month for up to 36 months of early claiming. Those who sign up more than three years early have another 5/12 of 1% withheld from their checks. That means those who apply immediately at 62 could lose as much as 35% from their monthly checks. In our previous example, that would drop your spousal benefit from $1,000 to $650 per month.

3. You might get your own retirement benefit, even if you qualify for a spousal benefit

You only get a spousal Social Security benefit if this amount is less than what you qualify for in your own right. If you didn't work enough to earn a Social Security retirement benefit in the first place, then you'll obviously get a spousal benefit. But it's more complicated for those who are dually eligible for benefits.

You can estimate what your retirement benefit and your spousal benefit could be worth by creating a my Social Security account and using the calculator tools here. For your retirement benefit, you shouldn't have to do anything to figure this out unless you want to change its estimates of your future earnings. To calculate your spousal benefit, you'll need to know how much your spouse qualifies for at their FRA. Once you input this, you'll be able to see your estimated spousal benefit at every age.

If your retirement benefit is higher, you'll get this amount in retirement. If your spousal benefit is higher, you'll get your retirement benefit plus a portion of your spousal benefit. For example, if your retirement benefit was $750 per month and your spousal benefit was $1,000 per month, you'd get your $750 retirement benefit, plus $250 of your spousal benefit for a total monthly check of $1,000.

One last thing to keep in mind if you expect to claim a spousal benefit: Unlike retirement benefits, spousal benefits don't offer you delayed retirement credits for waiting beyond your FRA to apply. So make sure you apply for these benefits no later than your FRA to avoid costing yourself.

If you have any questions about your personal situation, it's best to contact the Social Security Administration directly. They can assist you in figuring out which type of benefit you'll receive and what documents you need to apply.

The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy .

Related Articles

Premium Investing Services

Invest better with The Motley Fool. Get stock recommendations, portfolio guidance, and more from The Motley Fool's premium services.